Misplaced Pages

Thanks

Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

content court of appeals

• One body elected for lengthier terms (one year, though two years would be OK since it's far less stressful than ArbCom)
• That body accepts or rejects appeals — rejecting the overwhelming majority of them (see above about stress). Only truly intractable problems pass the bar; as I said on Lar's talk, Misplaced Pages actually functions well in the overwhelming majority of cases...
• That body then appoints/requests an ad hoc board of editors to serve as editors in chief. The process may involve community input, but that should be done carefully to avoid drama etc.
• That board stays with the article or suite of articles for an extended time period (six months?), working with editors to improve the text according to WP:5P...
• Decisions binding, unless new data comes out or whatever. A set of guidelines could be drawn up indicating when their decisions could be changed.
• Interested? I am very certainly neither skilled enough nor in possession of enough free time to push the idea.. where?... VP I guess... or wherever. • Ling.Nut 11:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. I have a stack of final exams to grade at the moment. In general, of course I like the idea (since I suggested it). I have very very little faith in the ability of Misplaced Pages to improve itself systemically. But we can discuss. I will get back to you in a while, perhaps a week or more... thanks! • Ling.Nut 05:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship FAR

I have nominated Iowa class battleship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Content court of appeals

This is very interesting. Have you thought about turning it into an essay? Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You work on it, then... Cla68 can as well if he wants... and I'll chip in later (no serious contribs for at least a week). Thanks! • Ling.Nut 09:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

PS – Try to sneak an absolute ban on "talkback" templates into the fine print, if possible. • Ling.Nut 09:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Ling.Nut's idea is much further developed than mine. If you're referring to my response on his page, I still have a ways to go in working through it before I come up with some kind of idea that adequately arrives at some kind of truth on this issue. I'll keep working on it, at least in my mind, for awhile. Cla68 (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Still, I found it impressive. Viriditas (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles in the topic area of climate change are under general sanctions due to continued disruptive editing

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Lawrence Solomon, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you already know, and your edits that I have seen appear solid, so just treat this as a formal notification for the sake of the log. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I'll be on the road for the next couple of weeks. I may or may not be looking at Misplaced Pages during that time. Cla68 (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugo Nespolo and othe careless prods

this was an exceptionally careless BLP prod; even if one cannot understand any Italian, the merest glance at Google News or Books would have shown the great number of good sources. It's a much more valuable service to place prods after at least looking. I apologize for expressing my impatience, but I have spent altogether too much time cleaning up after such as this, and I could do the necessary work much better if those who placed the prods did their share of it. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

actually, your prod on Ruslan Khasbulatov , Yeltsin's successor as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFR, was even more remarkable. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

or, for that matter, Sture Allén, a member of the Swedish Academy. I see almost all of your prods have been easily sourced by other editors, and you should really have done it yourself. This is the sort of work that harms the encyclopedia. Perhaps it will serve as an example of why drastic action of unsourced BLPs is unsuitable, because removing articles on such people is actively harmful when they can be improved so readily. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas John Baker

Cla68, were you aware that the owner of Metropolis, Mark Devlin, had an axe to grind with baker's mother? Delvin took his battle to wikipedia and was outed on the Baker article and ended up getting permantely kicked off - there are real issues with any infromation that originates from Metropolis (devlin) or factlaundering that resulted from either local papers picking up info from his editorials or possibly from him initiating contact with them. This should all realy be discusses on the baker discussion page before more editing is done with regards to Devlin material

Hi Cla68, thanks for the note on my talk. In reviewing the Baker discussion pages I noticed that you were part of some of the discussion at that time. You may want to look in the discussion archives to refresh your memory as to how things transpired. To address the topic of Metropolis as a RS especially when it comes to the Nicholas Baker article:

1) The Baker article is a BLP, as such the more negative the information becomes the more stringent the requirement for the sources, Where as it might be acceptable to use a local newspaper or free add-supported magazine like Metropolis for a fairly non-contentious issue, that same source should not be used for potentially libelous information.

2)Metropolis (the publication) was actually participating in a controversy, as opposed to only reporting it. The obvious conflict of interest Devlin/Metropolis demonstrated, lack of editorial oversight, and clear attempts of ax-grinding means no, Metropolis is absolutely unsuitable as a reliable source in this instance and quite frankly contaminated beyond redemption - what is needed are actual reliable sources independent of it.

3)I don't think it's notable but, putting aside my personal perspective, after much discussion it was agreed on that the following sentence about Devlin's flip-flop (from support to criticism) was free of BLP issues & fact laundering: "Mark Devlin, who at the time was the publisher of Metropolis, initially supported the Nick Baker campaign but withdrew his support in 2004 and publicly criticized the support group's campaign tactics". This is sourced to the Swindon Advertiser, Gloucestershire Echo & The Citizen.

I'm putting a copy of this message on the Baker discussion page as it would be easier to continue the discussion there as other editors may want to weigh inStatisticalregression (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC note to self

Note to self to remember to follow this content RfC I just started. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been starting to work with ChrisO and Hipocrite on a proposal related to renaming the CRU hacking incident article. Based on your comments at the RfC it seems that you might be willing to sign on to this proposal. We are intending to approach people on their user pages to try and build some momentum and for this proposal and hopefully build a growing set of editors who are willing to accept this as a reasonable compromise and then stand together to defend it. Please stop by and weigh-in with your opinion and feel free to sign on if you are willing to help push this and defend it. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI

I just complained about Tarc at AN/I (WP:ANI#Tarc's ongoing abuse). The least of it was this comment that appears to have been directed at you. It was my 6th example (out of eight). Just FYI. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones (climatologist)

Re: - I think the essay Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing describes the copyvio argument. I have at present no comment on that or any other issue there, I just noticed copyvio in the recent changes and wanted to glance that way before logging off. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Cla68,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Real Global Warming

Hi there. I see that you added the above book to the see also section of the IPCC page. I was wondering if you had read the book, and if so, if you could lend your voice in support of a reference I want to make re: how the book (in chapter 4, ‘The Hottest Year Ever’) charts thoroughly how the IPCC and the "Hockey Stick" graph were linked. At the moment, there is some resistance from certain editors for including the ref. All will become clear if you go to the discussion page. Best wishes,Jprw (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, I added the link after reading a synopsis of it in a third party source. I'll check out the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for lending your voice to the debate.Jprw (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Autoblocks

Just letting you know, we have an auto-block finder. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems like whenever someone gets unblocked, it takes awhile for the autoblocks to be manually resolved. It's a step that shouldn't be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

True. I've forgotten to do it myself. There is a link to the tool in the unblock page though. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Booker

Thank you for your encouraging words. Funnily enough I had noticed how calm, reasoned and objective/neutral you yourself came across on those discussion pages -- in stark contrast to others I might mention, and the vehement and repeated flagrant violations of WP:BLP/WP:CIVIL I found very disturbing. I have no particular axe to grind re: Global Warming; the Booker reference seemed to just fit perfectly in that particular sub-section of the IPCC article (extremely well sourced account, etc.). But it feels now as though I am just banging my head against a wall. All the best and keep up the good work, Jprw (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What's you take on the RfC as it stands now?

I have sort of been waiting for the RfC to conclude before bringing our proposal forward so as not to conflate the two but now it seems that it may have been sucked in anyways. I need to make a pass through reading the RfC comments and such to form my own opinion of what consensus, if any, was formed there. Can you summarize the status of the RfC and what, if anything, you feel the results thereof actually are? It seems to have spilled over into a move request and appears to be continuing there.  :) This is certainly a hot topic.

I was considering running a poll among the signatories to determine which variant of the current proposed name would be most preferred (since many of the signatories were lobbying for shorter versions). It may still make sense to do that but I wanted to make sure I understood where the RfC stood first. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Airplaneman 04:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good :). Nice to meet you, Airplaneman 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hello, Cla68. If you have a moment, could you copyedit the short section named "Controversies" on Tsushima, Nagasaki? I think your help would be greatly appreciated since Arstriker (talk · contribs) is not willing to compromise with me over a frivolous issue regarding fixing the current wrong and grammatically incorrect title, "Dispute incident". The original title of the section was "Racist attacks" and he altered it to "Protest of Japanese nationalists". As a compromise, I've suggested him to restore his first altered title "Protest of Japanese nationalists" instead of the weird current title. I guess a third person who knows Japanese history and culture would be helpful to end the frivolous dispute. Thanks.--Caspian blue 08:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The article has a much better shape now. I highly appreciate your help. If possible, could you also copy-edit the Korean claim section which seems to be more seriously in need of copyediting. Anyway, thanks again. --Caspian blue 17:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I tweaked a little bit since the cited source does not exist, and the mention of Liancourt Rocks without source can give a misimpression over the sovereignty and a POV concern. (that is not your responsibility of course, but the writer)--Caspian blue 23:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Booker again

In our zeal to argue our corner on Misplaced Pages sometimes we can fail to see fully the implications of counter-arguments. You have several times now dismissed statements about the problems of citing Booker as a scholarly source--in essence that his use of sources has been impeached so many times on this and other issues, and the Press Complaints Commission itself has ruled on this. That he's a partisan for an extreme minority view on this is also well sourced. I think you should address such objections seriously. They're not, as you have claimed several times now, merely the personal opinions of Wikipedians. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 16:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are the sources for your allegations? Again, we don't make these judgements, we allow our readers to look at the sources and decide for themselves on their credibility. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Let an uninvolved admin review the name of the climategate article

Cla68. That was a refreshing breath of air in the article. Personally, I search about once a day for articles on climategate & global warming (it's fun to watch how this thing develops), so I've read a couple of hundred articles on the subject and I'm very well aware of what people call it (both pro and anti) it is highly amusing to watch the editors on the climategate talk pages trying to pretend the media haven't already dicided that the public know this episode by only one name.

And just to put you in the picture, I have twice in the last fortnight written >2000 word reports using the emails to illustrate points and so I've had read up on the background from a variety of source - although I have to admit I didn't even consider reading the wikipedia article - I don't trust an article written by people who don't even recognise the name given to the episode by the public and media.88.110.16.230 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Weir

Could you point me to where "the current wording was agreed to", the current wording (after your reversion) was, as far as I can tell, never stable, and never agreed to. You yourself supported the exact version that you just reverted (see Talk:Johnny Weir/Archive 3#Sexuality verbiage still needs work). Here are some diffs from Feb. 10, Feb. 15, Feb. 16, Feb. 17, and Feb. 18 when the article was fully protected and we were in the early stages of discussion. I don't see anything in that discussion that would indicate firm agreement for the version to which you have reverted. One thing that was agreed to, was that the wording still needed adjustment because it was inaccurate. I've explained all this at Talk:Johnny Weir#Wording adjusted per archived discussion. Wine Guy~Talk 08:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Running

Moving this here for the obvious reasons. I am totally out of shape now and not running at all, but back in the day my wife and I ran together in a couple of marathons. We ran Chicago as a training run one year. My personal best was 3 hours 38 minutes. The others were between 3:45 and 4 hours.

My wife was actually into ultra-marathons for a while. She only ran one, a 50 miler. It was a race called Dances with Dirt and was hosted in Hell, Michigan. I was her support person and moved all her gear from one checkpoint to the next all along the way. It took her about 11 hours total to complete. There were a lot of people doing it, but a marathon was always more than enough for me!

Anyway, good luck. It should be fun no matter what! They always are.  :) (This is a statement that only a distance runner would understand.) --GoRight (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

PA

Thanks for offering to report the PA. The distraction may not be worth it, the reviewing folks aren't likely to act. However, the editor has been warned to avoid PA against me multiple times. If no action now, then I guess there will more to report later. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not the only PA that he's done recently, so that one is the proverbial straw. Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have filed an enforcement request. Cla68 (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well seems like it was closed for want of an RFC/U. Thanks again for showing concern. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak

The marathon is done. My time was 4:34. The weather was horrible, sleet, rain, and windy, I was overhydrated, and I can barely walk today. I'm really proud, however, to have done it. Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! Any marathon that you finish is a good marathon.  :) So, what are the crowds like for the Tokyo marathon on sleet, rain, and windy days? Don't worry, though, you'll recover quickly. A little Advil or Aspirin to help keep the inflammation down for a day or two works wonders. Hey, post a picture of your medal so I can see what the Tokyo one looks like. --GoRight (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, where are you in this picture?  :) It must have been wicked fun in spite of the weather. --GoRight (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm about 75-100 meters from the front. I'm wearing a yellow runners cap but I can't find it in the crowd. Cla68 (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the crowds were great. Tokyoites apparently love to cheer on marathoners. I must have heard "Gambatte!" and "Gambarimasu!" 10,000 times. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done! Pity about the weather, but there's a great "thank goodness I got through that" feeling at the end, even for relatively minor walks like I've been doing. The snow's been terrific here, but two feet of snow turns an easy hill walk into a real slog. Marathons are something else which I can't even aspire to, congratulations! . . dave souza, talk 09:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidents at SeaWorld parks

I very much appreciate your input in Talk:Incidents at SeaWorld parks#First Death. When you recover from your Marathon, I hope you will continue to input your opinion, since no compromises have been accepted and no consensus has been reached.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi - Feel free to chime in with the name discussion; you will recall that you agreed with the consensus to exclude names on the Incidents pages during the Monorail incident discussion back in July 2009. Hope you're doing well. SpikeJones (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thx for suggesting the conversation stay on point as much as it can. (hey, even though we've discussed this very topic before and occasionally agree and disagree on the outcome depending on the breeze, we can recognize when civility needs to come into play at the same time) SpikeJones (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Misplaced Pages, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

PA complaint

your involvement in climate change advocacy is a serious PA. Retract it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

PA is not some sort of currency to be tossed around. Grow a thicker skin. The main violation in that statement is grammar. Jehochman 19:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"grow a thicker skin" is your contribution to a civil wikipedia? Wonderful. Perhaps you might care to suggest that the "skeptics" do the same William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"PA" may not be the correct term for it; "unsubstantiated allegation of WP:COI" is more like it. Either way, WMC's rv in question was info that didn't match its source, and this part of the talk page discussion was just some silly escalation. More along, gentlemen and ladies, lesson learned (don't make accusations, cite sources properly), nothing more to see here... Awickert (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I mistakenly used the wrong source for that information. I've fixed it. And WMC did not answer my question. Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a big literature out there

The climate change literature is huge and it's easy to latch on to a couple of controversial papers. And pretty much everyone has an opinion. This is one of the things that makes it frustrating because it is hard to find and compile basic info. Some of the best sources for this information on WP are William Connolley and S.B.H. Boris. I am somewhat active in this area of WP, though it really is outside my professional expertise, and am happy to give you a hand if you're wondering about inclusion / noninclusion of material.

The basic point of that scatterbrained paragraph was to say: the literature is a mess and if you're thinking of citing it, it can help to chat with an expert first who can point you to the broader body of knowledge, and there are some of those folks on Misplaced Pages. Awickert (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

desmogblog

I can`t agree with you on this at all i`m afraid. Desmogblog is an attack blog full of lies wit hno editorial control at all. But i noticed how quickly you knocked out an article about them, would you care to perhaps help me out with this one? thanks mark nutley (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If a blog is noteworthy, I don't see any problem with giving their opinon on stuff and letting the reader decide what is true. I'll check Infotrac and NewsStand about the Watts blog. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help :-) I created the article but for some reason it seems to want to redirect to watts article? any idea`s on how to fix this? mark nutley (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave's recommendation for further reading

Regarding the history, Spencer R. Weart, who is well qualified as a historian with a physics background, has written The Discovery of Global Warming - A History, 2008 edition available from amazon with an extended version available free online – its timeline gives an overview with links to more detailed sections. The IPCC outlines its own past, and their FAQ discusses a number of issues covered in the WG1 report. I did note before that Philip Ball in his review recommended Richard A. Muller's Physics for Future Presidents for a balanced view of the hockey stick episode, available from Amazon. I've not read it or other books on the subject, and can't give any first hand guidance, but if I find good recommendations I'll let you know. Thanks for asking, dave souza, talk 19:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My talk page

Cla - it is clear from recent stuff on my talk page that you understanding of the science, and indeed your understanding of how to understand the science, is... well, since the civility police are watching, let us say that it is weak. I'd be grateful if you wouldn't interrupt conversations on my talk page with your lack of understanding. Please use the article talk pages if you want to discuss the articles and have nothing of value to say William M. Connolley (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're beginning to realise why, even if the Guardian had said what you thought it had said, we would not resort that as fact. If a newspaper were our only source on science, we would have no choice, but there are far more reliable sources on these subjects and newspapers are wrong on science at least as often as they are right, if only because the reporters frequently do not understand what they are writing about well enough to do a decent job. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Because of course no scientist has ever been wrong, right tony? mark nutley (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what this argument is about (although I'll bet it has to do with global climate change), but I would like to point out to Mark that "of course, scientists are normally wrong" as well.</sarcasm> One scientist can be wrong, but a grand consensus of scientists? Not nearly as likely... I agree with Tasty that more substantial sources would be preferable, but I don't see anything wrong with also adding sources to papers like the New York Times—a renowned paper with a good reputation for accurate articles. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC, here's the thing you don't seem to understand, we (WP) don't care who is right or is wrong. We just report what the sources say and the reader then draws their own conclusions. You can't remove sourced information from major newspapers just because you personally disagree with it. If you have scientific papers that contradict what the newspaper is reporting, then add that information to the article as well. Don't just delete the stuff you don't like and leave it at that. It's wrong, and contrary to how a wiki works. Your approach may work on your own personal website, if you have one, but not here. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Or rather, we would put what the scientific paper says, and leave out how the newspaper interprets it unless we're talking about social reaction to science rather than science itself. Otherwise we'd end up sourcing either good or mistaken interpretations alongside the original source, which would muddy the waters. As a matter of fact, I'd rather not cite newspapers at all for science, because of the above and if there isn't a scientific work on which they're reporting, they're just making stuff up. And there's almost always a spin. <sigh>I suppose this is why I've been avoiding global warming related stuff.</sigh> Awickert (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So far, I haven't seen any evidence that the paper was makig stuff up. The information has been removed, but nothing has been added explaining the phenomenom that the newspaper is claiming occurred. If there is a scientific paper out there talking about what happened, that would be better than the newspaper. It appears, however, that the newspaper is all we have. So, we report the information and the reader decides if it is true or not based on the source. We don't decide that for them. Cla68 (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In the situations that I have seen in which the newspaper is all we have on the topic of global warming, I generally see the writing approach one of two endmembers: "global warming is a commie hoax" or "global warming is going to kill us all tomorrow". The Guardian typically falls into the latter of these two fallacies, as does it in this section. While The Guardian is a WP:RS, I personally feel that it is doing our readers a severe disservice to put an article that quotes the probably off-the-top-of-the-head speculations of a couple scientists on a par with what we see in the mainstream scientific literature that has been vetted and confirmed. I think that this is one of the great things about WP:DEADLINE: we can hold ourselves to a high standard and can afford to wait until greater accuracy is possible and recent events are put into a broader context. And there really is such a fantastic body of scientific literature about the Gulf Stream that I think it's a pity to put such weight on sensationalist reporting. Awickert (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do remember as a child the "global cooling" scare of the early 1970s. I remember seeing these terrifying reports of an impending ice age on the evening news and my parents watching it wide-eyed and then asking each other how we could prepare for years of freezing temperatures in the summer (we lived in Alabama). So, I can see the point about being suspicious about media hysteria. The newspapers are usually able to find some scientist somewhere to give them a good, supporting quote, aren't they? Cla68 (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the exact concern that I have, and if you look through the scientific literature, there's not much more than a couple over-trumpeted papers about global cooling that were unfortunately not sufficiently rebutted by the rest of the scientific community. I have seen scientists I know who, on TV, have had their quotes sliced and butchered by a reporter who had already decided what that person was supposed to say or who simply didn't understand them because of insufficient background in the topic and/or physical intuition. And I really disapprove of scare tactics used by some environmentalists and some uninformed members of the Left. And that's the thing. I really wish I could use the newspapers in good conscience, and quite a bit of reporting in them is quite good. But the juicy and controversial stuff is far too often atrocious. Awickert (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, I'm generally happy to cite newspapers on facts (thermohaline circulation weakening for 10 days), but not on interpretations. Awickert (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not even on facts without a basic sanity check. I recall a recent story where the reporter consistently wrote "altitude" where it should have been "latitude." (There was never a correction.) The non-US press tends to do a little better, in my experience. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's depressing... Awickert (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)