Misplaced Pages

Talk:Heaven and Earth (book): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:21, 13 July 2009 editTillman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,591 edits →Comment by Kim D. Petersen: reply re Fielding← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:43, 8 March 2024 edit undoDreamy Jazz Bot (talk | contribs)Bots106,824 editsm Replacing Template:Ds/talk notice with Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. BRFA. 
(942 intermediate revisions by 60 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Controversial}}
{{WikiProject Books|class=Start}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{WP Australia|class=Start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Environment|class=Start}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject Books}}
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=Low}}
}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|cc}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 5
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Heaven and Earth (book)/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


== Blogs as cites? == == Prot: Why? ==

Tim Lambert, a vociferous pro-warming blogger, is quoted twice as a critic of this book and its author. Blog posts aren't generally considered a ], unless the author is a recognized expert, which Tim Lambert is not (he's a computer scientist, who blogs on climate as a hobby). Propose dropping the refs to Lambert here. --] (]) 21:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC), Consulting Geologist, Arizona and New Mexico (USA)

:Lambert is about as qualified as Plimer to comment on climate. But if you insist on removing his careful assemblage of Plimer's errors, more rebuttals can be found to replace the Lambert cites. ] 00:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Thanks! is promising -- at least these critics have climatology credentials. And these reviews appear more balanced. Cheers, ] (]) 02:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

== "Plimer's response to critics" and "Criticism" sections ==

Ratel: I don't think we need every point that's currently in these lists. I was attempting to make this a more balanced and readable article. Regards, ] (]) 03:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

== high POV of editor in response to criticisms section ==

Plimer's quotes in the responses section say nothing at all about Plimer's actual response to critics (i.e. they're not responses to criticism as such at all). They give the appearance of having been cherry-picked from the ''Australian'' article just to show Plimer's immoderate & angered rhetoric. The whole section needs re-writing. ] (]) 09:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
: So add the responses from Plimer you feel have been left out. ] 23:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
::That's not the point, the section is written as if to say a single opinion piece written in the ''Australian'' can be interpreted as a definitive response from Plimer to his critics. I would think the correct way of interpreting an opinion piece is merely... as an opinion piece... agreed? ] (]) 05:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
:::No. Those are Plimer's actual responses to critics, on one level. If you want to add detailed scientific responses, find a source and proceed. ] 05:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
::::What is meant by his actual responses to critics, "on one level"? ] (]) 07:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::I have cleaned it up a little to add context to some of these quotes... ] (]) 07:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

== General revisions for NPOV and cleanup ==

I've copyedited for NPOV, removed a statement (from a newspaper) that appears to be a reporter's misunderstanding ("Of the CO2, 95 per cent is due to natural processes (volcanoes, plants, bacteria etc) with the remainder (about 0.1 per cent) resulting from human activities.") -- , corrected typos, etc.

I reworked the response section, again, closer to Harvey's version. I think it's important to include Plimer's scientific responses, as we have a long section of other scientists criticizing his science. And his response needs context, per Harvey.

I reworked the quotes from Malcolm Walter, trying for NPOV. He's difficult to quote intelligibly. We may want to drop this one.

See what you think. Cheers, ] (]) 15:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:I cannot see how his rhetorical questions about people ignoring water vapor and his "betting the farm" on some hypothesis have ''anything'' to do with the criticisms aimed at the book. Please link these points to criticism or they shall be removed from the '''Response''' section. ] 23:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

::Please note the section is now titled and intro'd to cover Plimer's general remarks in response to his critics. If this isn't clear enough, we can work on that, but I feel his scientific points should remain. To the best of my knowledge, both these points are scientifically correct. And many of his critics' specific complaints also appear valid. Thanks, ] (]) 16:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

== Senator Fielding, an engineer by training ==

I added a couple of sentences on this Australian senator, who happens to be an engineer, and was influenced by Plimer and his book. Ratel reverted "an engineer by training," commenting "This redundant info, already on Fielding's page, is simply not relevant to this page and betrays a poorly concealed attempt to bestow authority on Fielding."

First, ]. Second, Fielding has technical training, which is pertinent to his investigation of the scientific background to ]. Third, Fielding himself mentioned his training in , which is cited in our article: "As an engineer, I have been trained to listen to both sides of the debate in order to make an informed decision about any issue. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that in order to form a conclusive view about any topic, you need to properly explore all available possibilities."
--] (]) 03:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

:Having a computer-related engineering degree that he has not used in 2 decades does not give Fielding any greater ability to assess Plimer's book than tens of millions of other people. If you want to insert the phrase "an engineer by training", ask for another opinion. I have already said that it's (1) already part of Fielding's own wp page, 2) largely irrelevant because it does not give him any special abilities to judge the science in this area and 3) it's a thinly disguised attempt to style him as a scientist of some sort, whereas he is simply a rightwing politician. And why have you tagged the other section as unbalanced? On what grounds? ] 05:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

::The article ''is'' unbalanced. There is far too much in the "criticisms" section and nowhere near enough of the responses section. This page shouldn't be a place to debate Plimer's views, but a place to present them neutrally. What of responses from others besides Plimer? It's pretty obvious to the reader that the editor wants it to be known that he should read Plimer's book at his own peril. Also, if Fielding is an engineer by training, and if it's reliably sourced, there's no reason why this shouldn't be included... ] (]) 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Ratel, are you going to try to eliminate every bit of the article that you personally don't agree with? Please see ]. This is getting ridiculous. --] (]) 04:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

::::Discuss edits, not editors (basic rule here). If you want to insert Fielding's college degree info on this page, put it to a ] or RfC it. ]

:::::Ratel, ] does not apply here because there is already a third opinion (i.e. mine). Which is not to say I am opposing more opinions, but you are the one currently overruled by a majority. Please allow the neutrality flag to remain. ] (]) 06:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::Ratel, the fact that you have reverted the edit anyway suggests that you have no genuine interest in consensus and raises the question why you've referred Pete Tillman to ]. Is that a rule that you feel should be binding on everyone including yourself? Respecting the consensus is also a basic rule here. Meanwhile you've asserted in the revision history that no reason has been given at Talk on why the section is failing ]. Allow me to quote myself, "''There is far too much in the "criticisms" section and nowhere near enough of the responses section.'' That is the difference between ''balanced'' and ''unbalanced''. ] (]) 13:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::]: ''Balance: Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the neutral point of view policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.''
::::::There are many sources out there defending Plimer as well, e.g. thus until some of these are included, the article will not attain any balance or neutrality. ] (]) 13:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I must have missed something... who is stopping YOU balancing the article by adding properly sourced views to the Praise section? Not me. I simply deleted anonymous blog trash. ] 14:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Ratel, you have indeed missed something. Your words, "...who is stopping YOU balancing the article...", concede the article is not balanced. What you have missed is the fact that the neutrality flag should remain in until someone does balance the article. You could also do this if you care about ]. Your edit warring to remove the flag is spite to ] and ]. Thanks, I'll put it back in, please leave it there this time. ] (]) 01:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Obviously, I meant that if the article is not balanced ''from your POV'', then balance it. Simply tagging the criticism section (which is by definition not balanced) as not NPOV is lazy and technically incorrect, and will be reverted if you do it again. I remain puzzled as to why you do not simply add properly sourced positive views. I'm starting to wonder if you are having trouble finding scientists who support this guy. ] ] 04:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Ratel, after I spent considerable time & effort trying to make your critical quotes balanced and neutral, you edited mixed reviews into purely negative ones. So don't act puzzled as to why I tagged the section. --] (]) 19:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::"Critical" quotes are not supposed to be "neutral". Sheez! ] 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::Any quote needs to fairly represent the person & work quoted. We'll see what 3rd parties think of your versions, eh? --] (]) 02:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

==Nomination for POV check==
* I've nominated the article for a neutrality check. Let's see if others feel it is not NPOV. ] 04:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks, always good to get an outside opinion. --] (]) 18:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

== "Praise & political impact" section ==

I've reformatted this section to match the rest of the article, copyedited and added cites, and restored a paragraph reverted by Ratel, who commented "Incorrect. The rightwing journos (sic) credit "a sharp shift in public opinion and political momentum" with the so-called "climb down"

I've revised the paragraph in question, added a quote from the WSJ, and added another cite. Ratel, if you still have objections, kindly raise them here rather than reverting. We don't need an edit war. Thank you, ] (]) 18:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

::Tillman, you are obviously here with a big agenda and POV. Sooner rather than later we will need a RFC on these edits. ] 01:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Ratel, you need to look in the mirror. And please discuss edits, not editors (basic rule here). Eh?

:::My "agenda" is to get the article to NPOV. As should yours be. --] (]) 02:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

== George Monbiot's comments ==

Well known journalist investigative George Monbiot has published a comment (blog entries by senior journalists attached to major newspapers can be RS) that could be worth mining for data for this page . ] 01:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

:FYI, I intend to have a go at rewriting this article over the weekend to address the POV concerns that have been raised here and expanding it to cover the topic better. I have ] in that department. -- ] (]) 01:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

::In ''The Guardian'', Monbiot earlier wrote: "flying across the Atlantic is as unacceptable, in terms of its impact on human well-being, as child abuse". Ref: ]

::ChrisO, your contributions will be welcome, as things are getting a bit ''warm'' here... ;-] (]) 02:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Please do not edit my remarks here, Ratel. This may constitute ]. Thank you, ] (]) 04:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

::::Please take care to note how talk pages should be used, and that is <u>only to improve the article</u>, not to depart on a tangential attack on a respected investigative journalist. Try to stay on topic and address the issues. The rest is simply wikichat. ] 04:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

::Thank you for inputting your expertise, ChrisO. ] 02:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

== RfC: Neutrality of edits on book by Climate Change sceptic Plimer ==

{{rfctag|sci}}


Apart from some sock edits, there isn't a lot of reverting here, so it is unclear why the page is protected<s>, let alone why it needs prot until 03:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)</s>. So it isn't really clear what needs to be discussed to end the prot. Not that I care much, since it is prot on my version, in clear violation of ] ] (]) 13:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
* Does the article contain neutrality issues?


:A short protection is reasonable, to resolve brewing disputes. ] (]) 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
* Is the Criticism section POV or simply properly sourced criticism?
:: Who's brewing a dispute? A semi protection would have stopped the problematic IP edits, and simple encouragement to get an account. The scibaby socks shouldn't result in no editing to the article being allowed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 13:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Viridae has a long-standing grudge against some of the editors here, and is best buddies with Cla68 (who is still griping about an argument he had with WMC three years ago). It's an attempt to annoy or provoke without actually editing the article. Don't take the bait. ] (]) 14:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::: <s>I wonder if AT considers 2010 to be a short protection? Howver, as well as the clearly f*ck*d up duration,</s> the question was: exactly which dispute are we being protected from? I don't see anyone attempting to discuss whatever the issue is supposed to be ] (]) 14:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::: ''I wonder if AT considers 2010 to be a short protection?'' No, of course not, but it's clearly not 2010. ] (]) 14:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::The edit protection is a week. It's the move protection that goes to 2010. ] (]) 14:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::: Oops, *I* f*ck*d that up. apologies, and striken ] (]) 18:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


It's unfortunate that people just revert sensible improvements instead of giving them appropriate consideration and collaborating to further refine the text. The article is poorly written. ] (]) 17:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
* Should Senator Fielding be identified as having an engineering degree?
: Spiffy, but vague. Care to be more precise about what changes you might like to see (you get extra bonus points if the current protection is even vaguely relevant to your suggestions, or perhaps more accurately V does) ] (]) 18:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:: You're too late on that, but nonetheless if you have suggestions for improvement please make them. If you don't have suggestions for improvement - please find another page to talk on ] (]) 21:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm never late Connolley. But your personal attacks on <s>Viriditas</s> Viridae and snarky commentary are very unbecoming. It's really no wonder you lost your tools. One of the changes I made was to clarify that the "is a popular science book" bit is meant to indicate that the book is in the popular science genre not that it's a bestseller. If I'm mistaken on that feel free to correct me, but the link is to the genre and not to a sales category. ] (]) 21:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::: You've got the wrong V. You also need to read ], unless you're being deliberately impolite. Diff? ] (]) 22:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::I made a series of edits including this one clarifying that one source was disputing another . A third party source would be needed to establish there are factual errors. Other edits follow. Are you not familiar with how edit history works? There's a tab at the top of the article page. Cheers. ] (]) 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::: is you downplaying IP's errors; I'm not sure why you think anyone else would regard that as an improvement. Don't bother to thank me for correcting you about the V's ] (]) 22:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::: ( was Scibaby too.) -] (]) 22:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


The IP's edit were no more problematic from a behavioural standpoint than anyone elses edits, so semi protection, locking one side out of a content dispute is clearly inappropriate. The article is protected because almost every edit for the 24 hours up until the protection was a revert of some form. Looking at the accounts that were edit warring, I see two of them have been blocked as socks, so will now remove the protection, as thre should be noone to continue that side of the revert war. Lastly SHB, next time you make accusations of bias, please provide supporting evidence, or don't make them at all. ]] 20:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
* Is Tillman's edit claiming that this book had influenced the Australian Government properly sourced, or is it OR and SYN?
: You've got your timeline a bit wrong. They had both been blocked before you applied protection. Lastly, V, next time you make protections, please make appropriate checks beforehand, or don't interfere at all ] (]) 21:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::I have no problem with Viridae's actions here, and will note that Nishkid64 just locked ] for similar reasons and ''longer'' duration, yet that action draws no charges of "interference". ] (]) 22:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Nishkid64 applied semi-protection, not full. That's the difference. -] (]) 23:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Ah, OK, I missed that. In any case, Viridae ''is'' uninvolved, and he protected it (on WMC's version, btw) when he saw what appeared to be a revert war on an article that was just involved in an edit war last week, then reversed it when parties informed him that the socks had been blocked. I see no problem with his actions. We don't all have finely tuned Scibaby radar. :-) ] (]) 23:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::: You're very forgiving when it suits you. It doesn't take much in the way of radar to spot Scibaby socks *when they have already been blocked* a point you seem to have lightly skipped over ] (]) 22:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::It's called assuming good faith. Read about it sometime. :-) ] (]) 22:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Semi-protection does seem appropriate here, given the repeated interventions by Scibaby sockpuppets. (Is there any way of blocking him for good, i.e. blocking the underlying IP address?) -- ] (]) 22:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


::::AFAIK, Scibaby socks are named accounts not IPs, so semi-prot wouldn't even work, right? ] (]) 22:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::He uses both IPs and named accounts, in fact a very wide range of IP addresses (see ). Semiprotection requires not just a named account but an ] account, i.e., at least four days old with ten edits. He does create "aged" socks to get around this but semiprotection would at least inconvenience him. His two latest sockpuppets here were new accounts so semiprotection would have helped. ] (]) 22:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::OK, thanks, I thought he used only autoconfirmed accounts. ] (]) 23:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


== The lede ==
Thanks for any comments.] 03:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


I have rejigged the lede slightly. In good faith and attempting to maintain balance and I'll revert if anyone requests it.
===Previously involved editors===
====Comment by Ratel====
* '''Neutrality''' — I cannot see neutrality issues in the article as it stands. The criticism in the Criticism section is all well sourced and germane.
* '''Fielding''' — It is not necessary to re-state the man's education. He is a politician, and does not work as a scientist. Repeating his educational status here is a blatant ].
* '''Book has changed Government actions''' — Tillman appears to be indulging in ] and ] here. He quotes a rightwing website commentary that obliquely speculates that the book may have been part of what influenced the decisions made by the Australian Government, but otherwise it's pure OR.] 03:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


I think there was too much discussion of the topic in the lede. It needs to be clear that the book does not represent a mainstream view, but I think it was going a little overboard. I also felt that the first sentence was a little clunky with the mention of Adelaide University. It's still clear that the "conservative press" has lauded the book but that "others, including scientists" have derided it. ] (]) 04:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
::Your claims to NPOV would be more persuasive if you hadn't ignored everything I've added on this thread here in your summary. The big POV issue is one of balance: we have found six critics of Plimer, and no defenders in the article (I provided a link to Kininmonth has defended the book above). Finally, we have an immoderate op-ed response from Plimer which hasn't been summarised at all, rather a list of direct quotes have been cherry-picked so as to show Plimer's rhetoric but not his argument. Regardless of how many defenders/attackers of the book there are, I would argue that having six attackers here in the article is too heavy and not consistent with ] or ]. Unfortunately I'm quite busy right at the moment but in a few days I may be able to add the Kininmonth stuff in. ] (]) 08:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


:I reverted for you. Look at the archives for this page please. A large cohort of editors argued this article into some sort of consensus, and it would be good if you did not re-start that process. Thanks. ] 06:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
:::Taking your points in sequence:
:::#'''Balance''': as I have repeatedly stated, other editors should find and insert cited supporting text (not anonymous blog commentary). I did a quick search and was able to find quite a lot. I'm not sure why you and Tillman are not using it.
:::#'''Plimer's response''': Plimer himself chose the words for his response. I "cherry-picked" the core arguments he made, which unfortunately turned out to be a rather vitriolic attack on the science community. If you can add to it by inserting scientific arguments he made in that article, go ahead.
:::#'''Too many critics''': There are 6 scientists quoted, but I may even add more. NPOV does not dictate that all views should be of equal length. Since both ''for'' and ''against'' views are in the article, you cannot really complain about POV editing. You could try to make an ] argument on the grounds you cite, but note that the rules state that ''"In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views"''. Since Plimer is definitely voicing a maverick opinion, it would hardly be correct to have as many supportive views as there are critical views. I would argue that since scientists like Plimer are in the tiny minority, the issue is one of ] and therefore Misplaced Pages's ] rules are invoked. Oh, and this is not a biography page, so we are not dealing with any BLP issues here. ] 09:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


::Thank you. I'll note that we state that ] is "one such conservative source" but then later use the same newspaper as a source for the quote that the book is "so wrong as to be laughable." Could you also make some sort of edit that addresses the inconsistency? ] (]) 06:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
====Comment by Tillman====
*'''Neutrality''': The article as a whole is not too bad now, much improved over (for example) . The has specific POV problems, as follows:


:::The Australian is mostly conservative but occasionally carries a dissenting opinion. I'm not sure we need to state that subtle nicety in the article. But I'll look at it. ] 06:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Colin Woodroffe's critique is , and opens as follows: "“This is an interesting book, written in a confrontational style, and sure to create a stir." -- and continues with mixed praise & criticism: a mixed review.


::::Thanks for taking the time. ] (]) 06:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is the current version in our article (no wikilinks):


== Criticisms of the book ==
Professor Colin Woodroffe, a coastal geomorphologist at the University of Wollongong, and a lead chapter author for the IPCC AR4, writes that the book has many errors and will be "remembered for the confrontation it provokes rather than the science it stimulates." Woodroffe notes Pilmer's "unbalanced approach to the topic," and concludes by saying that the book was not written as a contribution to any scientific debate, and was evidently not aimed at a scientific audience.


Reading through the article, the criticisms of the book seem largely to be of the "I don't like it" sort. There's lots of "disservice to science", "it's nonsense", "another case of alarmism" and "it's science fiction" comments, but little criticism of substance. There is nothing that I could see that says "Plimer said X which is wrong because of Y". Surely there must be some more substantive criticisms that have been reported in the press that could be included? ] (]) 06:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Not much trace of Woodroffe's original mixed review remains. Other examples of POV problems are listed above on this page.


:The exact scientific errors and criticisms can be found in the refs and footnotes. Read the article properly. Misplaced Pages is not the place to restate these arguments. There are over 100 errors in the book, as one of the refs points out. ] 06:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Editor KD Peterson (below) brings up some new issues. I will reply to his comments there, when time permits. I am leaving on a business trip early tomorrow.


::In which case, do we really need a list of all the people that agree together with their "I don't like it" comments? Wouldn't it be better to provide a list of the key errors? ] (]) 06:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''Senator Fielding, an engineer by training''': Fielding has technical training, which is pertinent to his investigation of the scientific background to ]. Fielding himself mentioned his training in , which is cited in our article: "As an engineer, I have been trained to listen to both sides of the debate in order to make an informed decision about any issue. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that in order to form a conclusive view about any topic, you need to properly explore all available possibilities."


:::They said more than they don't like it, they said it was full of errors. When an expert in climate says a book about climate is full of errors, that's the important thing. We don't need all the scientific and mathematical jargon to prove it. The encyclopedia has a general readership, and the experts can go to the sources. ] 06:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''Political impact in Australia.''' Here is the draft contribution in question:


::::: Plimer's errors are probably peripheral and fairly minor. If they were major errors regarding the thrust of Plimer's arguments, I'm sure the Pro-AGW editors would gladly include them. This should tell us why the criticisms are confined to vague claims as User:Thepm pointed out. ] (]) 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Plimer's book is credited with contributing to a "a series of climb-downs as Prime Minister ]'s government has been forced to delay its plans for ] controls." <ref name=RCP>, by Robert Tracinski and Tom Minchin, ], June 24, 2009. </ref> <ref> , by ], ''The Australian'', April 29, 2009</ref> <ref> Strassel column, Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2009 </ref>


::::Should I assume then that the article is fine just the way it is? ] (]) 06:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
====References for this draft====
{{reflist}}


:::::Unless you want another major stoush, yes. ] 06:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
As the contribution is basically a quote from an article at ], it would be difficult to find original research or synthesis here. Please see that article, and the other cites, for context.


Thanks for your interest, ] (]) 03:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC) New ref: http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/371-7da-7-1e ] (]) 08:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


:Well spotted - I added it. -- ] (]) 10:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
===Previously uninvolved editors===


== External links modified ==
==== Comment by ] ====
To answer the neutrality question first, now that i've looked at all the references, is pretty simple: The Criticism section is well sourced, most comments are by experts, most are in reliable sources (and not Op-Ed's) and where the comments deviate from RS, it full fills the exception clauses in SPS (written by an expert, on the experts expertise subject). So far so good.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
The Praise section on the other hand is comprised of non-expert Op-Ed's (2), a book-blurb (that most certainly isn't an RS) and a blog used to comment and speculate on BLP material (Fielding). This is ''not good''. (the Fielding part ''has'' to go - the Fairfax article is an RS (i assume without knowing Australian media), and could be used on BLP comments though).


I have just added archive links to {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090912003716/http://www.australian-options.org.au/issues/options_53/article_ranald.asp to http://www.australian-options.org.au/issues/options_53/article_ranald.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090811162313/http://www.covertmagazine.com:80/lakshman-menon.htm to http://www.covertmagazine.com/lakshman-menon.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090426233259/http://www.news.com.au:80/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25376348-5006301,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25376348-5006301,00.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
So to the neutrality issue: No its not neutral, it is tilted with undue weight towards Praise (which seems to have been thrown in with a showel).


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
Now i'm not saying that there shouldn't be praise, but the praise section ''has'' to balance the ''weight'' of the criticisms. That means finding equally weighty praises - or cut down on the praise section to a shortened version.


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 03:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Both sections should be incorporated into a section on critical reception (ie. both praise, and critique mixed).


== External links modified (January 2018) ==
The Plimer response section is undue weight, and should be cut down to something like (Plimer has responded to these critiques in an Op-Ed in the Australian). Of course an author doesn't agree with critics, debunking has no place here.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
About Fielding: See WP:PEACOCK. Fielding is not an expert, and his comments should be seen as a politicians. If people need background on Fielding - they go via the Wikilink. The larger problem is the sourcing of Fielding's comments/opinion. Reference 6 (op-ed) and 9 (blog) are not reliable sources on Fielding. Which as i said above is a BLP violation.


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
To summarize: WP:N is about weight of arguments in reliable sources - not equal time. If there are more critics than praisers, then the article ''must'' reflect that! We break neutrality if we have to use substandard sources to "balance" good sources.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090829095234/http://www.aussmc.org.au/IanPlimerclimatebook.php to http://www.aussmc.org.au/IanPlimerclimatebook.php


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
(as a notabene: please include the RfC in some of the relevant wikiprojects to get a wide array of comment)
--] (]) 20:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
::(brief comments, in haste)
::*]'s recommendation is certainly reliable for ''his opinion'' of the book.
::*Fielding: since this section covers political impact, and Fielding is a player, your objection is puzzling. --] (]) 03:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes, Klaus' recommendation would be reliable for his opinion - if the source was reliable for stating Klaus' opinion.... It isn't. A Book blurb is ''not'' a reliable source to Klaus' opinion.
::::I have no idea what you find puzzling here - The entire Fielding section is not reliably sourced. Its from a blog for goodness sake. And Fielding's opinion (no matter how you turn it), is a BLP issue. The whole section is ] based on non-reliable sources, but as i pointed out, the Fairfax article ''is'' reliable, ''and'' contains info on Fielding if it is needed. --] (]) 23:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 10:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::Are you suggesting that the publisher would print a faked endorsement from a prominent politician like Klaus? This seems very unlikely.
:::::The Fielding section is based primarily on a column by Fielding himself at the ''Australian'' newspaper, with a supporting cite from the WSJ. There's a secondary cite from an article (not a blog post) at ]. And this isn't a biography -- how would BLP apply here? So I'm still puzzled. Best, ] (]) 00:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


======


==Citing Andrew Alexander's opinion==
====Comment by editor 1====


] added a cite of an opinion about the book by ] on . After later changes and additions the cited text became "The British Daily Mail's right-wing columnist Andrew Alexander called it "the best book on science and scientists I have ever read" and declared that "piece by piece, he takes apart the work of the fanatics." ] removed it all on , with edit summary = "rm deprecated source the Daily Mail WP:DAILYMAIL ("generally prohibited" per RFC; should not be used or trusted for any claim or purpose". I reverted, saying that the edit summary was false because this is a cite of opinion, which is not prohibited. David Gerard re-inserted, restating the Daily Mail claim and adding "In any case, it is clearly WP:UNDUE, and its addition appears contrived." Although David Gerard is wrong about WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:UNDUE is a real thing. My opinion is: the text should be restored to what it was before David Gerard's edit. Are there other opinions? ] (]) 17:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
====Comment by editor 2====
:I can see a few people in ] claiming it lets opinions through; the final RFC summary, as endorsed by multiple admins, clearly doesn't. Last time this was raised at ], a short while ago, it generated a lot of opinion on opinion, but not a consensus to change the RFC. If you want to change the outcome of ] to let opinion through, ] is the venue to do so - not a ] on a talk page - ] (]) 17:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
::]: you are wrong, as I've explained before. But your WP:DUE and "contrived" objections can be looked at -- the "multiple admins" closers agreed that some opinions are okay but one said re citing this kind of column: "it would still be acceptable (though one might question ''why'' we need the opinion of Person X from the Daily Mail." That can be decided here. Are there other opinions?] (]) 21:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I added it originally, mainly to show how the right wing press were in violent agreement with the denier elements of the book. I think that is still shown in the WP article without the reference to the junky Daily Mail and its journalists. I approve of the removal of the Daily Mail from the list of RSes. I approve of the removal of the text I inserted. ] (]) 00:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
::::OK. Unless a bunch of other people join in and say otherwise, I guess we can call this a consensus to remove in this case. In other cases, if I happen to notice David Gerard again removing a valid cite with an incorrect edit summary, we'll see how it goes. ] (]) 00:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:43, 8 March 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heaven and Earth (book) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Heaven and Earth (book). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Heaven and Earth (book) at the Reference desk.
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBooks
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
WikiProject iconAustralia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconHeaven and Earth (book) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
WikiProject iconEnvironment Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClimate change Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Prot: Why?

Apart from some sock edits, there isn't a lot of reverting here, so it is unclear why the page is protected, let alone why it needs prot until 03:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC). So it isn't really clear what needs to be discussed to end the prot. Not that I care much, since it is prot on my version, in clear violation of WP:WRONG William M. Connolley (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A short protection is reasonable, to resolve brewing disputes. ATren (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Who's brewing a dispute? A semi protection would have stopped the problematic IP edits, and simple encouragement to get an account. The scibaby socks shouldn't result in no editing to the article being allowed. Verbal chat 13:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Viridae has a long-standing grudge against some of the editors here, and is best buddies with Cla68 (who is still griping about an argument he had with WMC three years ago). It's an attempt to annoy or provoke without actually editing the article. Don't take the bait. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if AT considers 2010 to be a short protection? Howver, as well as the clearly f*ck*d up duration, the question was: exactly which dispute are we being protected from? I don't see anyone attempting to discuss whatever the issue is supposed to be William M. Connolley (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if AT considers 2010 to be a short protection? No, of course not, but it's clearly not 2010. ATren (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The edit protection is a week. It's the move protection that goes to 2010. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Oops, *I* f*ck*d that up. apologies, and striken William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that people just revert sensible improvements instead of giving them appropriate consideration and collaborating to further refine the text. The article is poorly written. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Spiffy, but vague. Care to be more precise about what changes you might like to see (you get extra bonus points if the current protection is even vaguely relevant to your suggestions, or perhaps more accurately V does) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You're too late on that, but nonetheless if you have suggestions for improvement please make them. If you don't have suggestions for improvement - please find another page to talk on William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm never late Connolley. But your personal attacks on Viriditas Viridae and snarky commentary are very unbecoming. It's really no wonder you lost your tools. One of the changes I made was to clarify that the "is a popular science book" bit is meant to indicate that the book is in the popular science genre not that it's a bestseller. If I'm mistaken on that feel free to correct me, but the link is to the genre and not to a sales category. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You've got the wrong V. You also need to read User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats, unless you're being deliberately impolite. Diff? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I made a series of edits including this one clarifying that one source was disputing another . A third party source would be needed to establish there are factual errors. Other edits follow. Are you not familiar with how edit history works? There's a tab at the top of the article page. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
is you downplaying IP's errors; I'm not sure why you think anyone else would regard that as an improvement. Don't bother to thank me for correcting you about the V's William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
(24.205.142.176 was Scibaby too.) -Atmoz (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP's edit were no more problematic from a behavioural standpoint than anyone elses edits, so semi protection, locking one side out of a content dispute is clearly inappropriate. The article is protected because almost every edit for the 24 hours up until the protection was a revert of some form. Looking at the accounts that were edit warring, I see two of them have been blocked as socks, so will now remove the protection, as thre should be noone to continue that side of the revert war. Lastly SHB, next time you make accusations of bias, please provide supporting evidence, or don't make them at all. Viridae 20:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got your timeline a bit wrong. They had both been blocked before you applied protection. Lastly, V, next time you make protections, please make appropriate checks beforehand, or don't interfere at all William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with Viridae's actions here, and will note that Nishkid64 just locked Ian Plimer for similar reasons and longer duration, yet that action draws no charges of "interference". ATren (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Nishkid64 applied semi-protection, not full. That's the difference. -Atmoz (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I missed that. In any case, Viridae is uninvolved, and he protected it (on WMC's version, btw) when he saw what appeared to be a revert war on an article that was just involved in an edit war last week, then reversed it when parties informed him that the socks had been blocked. I see no problem with his actions. We don't all have finely tuned Scibaby radar. :-) ATren (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You're very forgiving when it suits you. It doesn't take much in the way of radar to spot Scibaby socks *when they have already been blocked* a point you seem to have lightly skipped over William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It's called assuming good faith. Read about it sometime. :-) ATren (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protection does seem appropriate here, given the repeated interventions by Scibaby sockpuppets. (Is there any way of blocking him for good, i.e. blocking the underlying IP address?) -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK, Scibaby socks are named accounts not IPs, so semi-prot wouldn't even work, right? ATren (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
He uses both IPs and named accounts, in fact a very wide range of IP addresses (see here). Semiprotection requires not just a named account but an autoconfirmed account, i.e., at least four days old with ten edits. He does create "aged" socks to get around this but semiprotection would at least inconvenience him. His two latest sockpuppets here were new accounts so semiprotection would have helped. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I thought he used only autoconfirmed accounts. ATren (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The lede

I have rejigged the lede slightly. In good faith and attempting to maintain balance and I'll revert if anyone requests it.

I think there was too much discussion of the topic in the lede. It needs to be clear that the book does not represent a mainstream view, but I think it was going a little overboard. I also felt that the first sentence was a little clunky with the mention of Adelaide University. It's still clear that the "conservative press" has lauded the book but that "others, including scientists" have derided it. Thepm (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted for you. Look at the archives for this page please. A large cohort of editors argued this article into some sort of consensus, and it would be good if you did not re-start that process. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 06:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll note that we state that The Australian is "one such conservative source" but then later use the same newspaper as a source for the quote that the book is "so wrong as to be laughable." Could you also make some sort of edit that addresses the inconsistency? Thepm (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The Australian is mostly conservative but occasionally carries a dissenting opinion. I'm not sure we need to state that subtle nicety in the article. But I'll look at it. ► RATEL ◄ 06:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. Thepm (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of the book

Reading through the article, the criticisms of the book seem largely to be of the "I don't like it" sort. There's lots of "disservice to science", "it's nonsense", "another case of alarmism" and "it's science fiction" comments, but little criticism of substance. There is nothing that I could see that says "Plimer said X which is wrong because of Y". Surely there must be some more substantive criticisms that have been reported in the press that could be included? Thepm (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The exact scientific errors and criticisms can be found in the refs and footnotes. Read the article properly. Misplaced Pages is not the place to restate these arguments. There are over 100 errors in the book, as one of the refs points out. ► RATEL ◄ 06:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
In which case, do we really need a list of all the people that agree together with their "I don't like it" comments? Wouldn't it be better to provide a list of the key errors? Thepm (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
They said more than they don't like it, they said it was full of errors. When an expert in climate says a book about climate is full of errors, that's the important thing. We don't need all the scientific and mathematical jargon to prove it. The encyclopedia has a general readership, and the experts can go to the sources. ► RATEL ◄ 06:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Plimer's errors are probably peripheral and fairly minor. If they were major errors regarding the thrust of Plimer's arguments, I'm sure the Pro-AGW editors would gladly include them. This should tell us why the criticisms are confined to vague claims as User:Thepm pointed out. 71.254.15.230 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Should I assume then that the article is fine just the way it is? Thepm (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Unless you want another major stoush, yes. ► RATEL ◄ 06:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

New ref: http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/371-7da-7-1e William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted - I added it. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Heaven and Earth (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 03:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heaven and Earth (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


Citing Andrew Alexander's opinion

Ratel added a cite of an opinion about the book by Andrew Alexander (journalist) on 16 July 2009. After later changes and additions the cited text became "The British Daily Mail's right-wing columnist Andrew Alexander called it "the best book on science and scientists I have ever read" and declared that "piece by piece, he takes apart the work of the fanatics." David Gerard removed it all on 12 May 2020, with edit summary = "rm deprecated source the Daily Mail WP:DAILYMAIL ("generally prohibited" per RFC; should not be used or trusted for any claim or purpose". I reverted, saying that the edit summary was false because this is a cite of opinion, which is not prohibited. David Gerard re-inserted, restating the Daily Mail claim and adding "In any case, it is clearly WP:UNDUE, and its addition appears contrived." Although David Gerard is wrong about WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:UNDUE is a real thing. My opinion is: the text should be restored to what it was before David Gerard's edit. Are there other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I can see a few people in WP:DAILYMAIL claiming it lets opinions through; the final RFC summary, as endorsed by multiple admins, clearly doesn't. Last time this was raised at WP:RSN, a short while ago, it generated a lot of opinion on opinion, but not a consensus to change the RFC. If you want to change the outcome of WP:DAILYMAIL to let opinion through, WP:RSN is the venue to do so - not a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a talk page - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
David Gerard: you are wrong, as I've explained before. But your WP:DUE and "contrived" objections can be looked at -- the "multiple admins" closers agreed that some opinions are okay but one said re citing this kind of column: "it would still be acceptable (though one might question why we need the opinion of Person X from the Daily Mail." That can be decided here. Are there other opinions?Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I added it originally, mainly to show how the right wing press were in violent agreement with the denier elements of the book. I think that is still shown in the WP article without the reference to the junky Daily Mail and its journalists. I approve of the removal of the Daily Mail from the list of RSes. I approve of the removal of the text I inserted. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
OK. Unless a bunch of other people join in and say otherwise, I guess we can call this a consensus to remove in this case. In other cases, if I happen to notice David Gerard again removing a valid cite with an incorrect edit summary, we'll see how it goes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Categories: