Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 5: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:59, 6 October 2010

Revision as of 15:30, 13 October 2010

Line 167:

:::Literaturegeek, why don't you go add the following text and cite to [[William M. Connolley]]'s BLP and see what happens? I'm sure WMC and the editors who watch his article wouldn't mind it being added, since they appear to agree that the same type of information can be added to the BLPs of sceptics. {{Cquote|In the summer of 2008, Connolley assisted Dave Rado in reviewing his proposed complaint to [[Ofcom]] over the documentary ''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]''. Prado asked Connnolley for his assistance because, according to [[Christopher Booker]], Connolley had developed a reputation among climate change circles for his effective work in ensuring that Wikipedia articles on global warming stayed "on message."<ref>{{cite book|ref=harv|last= Booker|first= Christopher|title=[[The Real Global Warming Disaster]]|publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd|year=2009|isbn=1441110526}}, pp. 236–237.</ref>}}

:::{{reflist}}

:::<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cla68|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:::{{unsigned|Cla68}}

:::::I think that would be a rather bad idea - not because of the content - but because the reference isn't reliable to information of that kind. Opinion/Polemics generally aren't. But then again, if you think that it is important in the context of WMC's biography to have information about his "peer-reviewing" the OfCom complaint - then this[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7517444.stm] reference should be reasonably appropriate (although it should be prefixed with "According to David Rado, ....". --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 07:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)