| Revision as of 06:14, 27 August 2008 editRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits →removed the .au critique← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:34, 27 August 2008 edit undoGoRight (talk | contribs)6,435 edits →removed the .au critiqueNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| ::::::As usual, GoRight is making claims about policy that do not accurately represent what they actually say. In particular, there is nothing extraordinary in the sourced statement; it's a sourced, factual criticism of him that's fully in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 06:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC) | ::::::As usual, GoRight is making claims about policy that do not accurately represent what they actually say. In particular, there is nothing extraordinary in the sourced statement; it's a sourced, factual criticism of him that's fully in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 06:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::: It's not factual, it is one journalist's opinion. If this is not true you should have no trouble producing a second source. Per ] this is a disparaging remark and should be removed unless it can be reliably sourced as a statement of fact and one article stating the opinion of a non-notable journalist does not rise to the level required in this context. | |||
| ::::::: "''As usual, GoRight is making claims about policy that do not accurately represent what they actually say.''" - This is all smoke on your part. Does ] not state that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources?" Does ] not state both "do no harm" and "remove poorly sourced material immediately?" You seem to forget that these policies are actually written down and people can verify that my statements regarding them are accurate. I'll also ask you to refrain from future personal attacks of this sort. --] (]) 06:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Blatant Self Promotion? == | == Blatant Self Promotion? == | ||
Revision as of 06:34, 27 August 2008
 | Biography Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Australia: Education Start‑class   | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. | This article was nominated for deletion on 24-08-08. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
Is it just me or is this page a bit too praiseworthy, without any critical analysis of his views. One begins to suspect that the subject may also be an author... Kwakpwns (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
restored the .au critique
I've restored this:
- Carter is a prominent global warming sceptic and has consistently opposed the consensus view on global warming . A March 2007 article in the Sydney Morning Herald noted that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community."
Which was cut, stating WP:BLP reasons (specifically that it was the opinion of a journalist). That particular critique is not valid - as the article is not an Op-Ed/Editorial and thus is part of the newspapers normal journalism. Its a WP:RS - but WP:WEIGHT might be an issue though (haven't looked that much at it). --Kim D. Petersen 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
removed the .au critique
The comment by the Sydney Morning Herald reporter is quite inappropriate for this article. First of all, it gives undue weight to the reporter's completely unsourced and unverified statement. Even though article from which the statement was taken was not an Op-Ed, since the statement was not sourced or verified, the statement is unquestionably the reporter's opinion.
Furthermore, the statement is false, or at least misleading. This is because the purpose of the statement is to call into question Prof. Carter's qualifications, yet presents him only as a marine biologist while conveniently omitting his qualifications as a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, and environmental scientist plus peer-reviewed publication record in environmental sciences. The reporter's mis-characterization, perhaps, borders on libel.
Additionally, the reporter herself, Wendy Frey, is well-known to be a global warming advocate and her objectivity toward Prof. Carter is clearly questionable, certainly not neutral. DrPaul0401 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- This looks like a repeat of the section above. I don't think there is any requirement that material we quote from elsewhere be sourced to your satisfaction - only that the source itself be considered reliable. I'm not too familiar with au papers, but is there reason to believe the SMH is unreliable? I don't think we should be taking into account your opinion of the reporter, either William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- The points I am making are: 1. The statement by the reporter is clearly an opinion and it is disparaging. 2. According to W-BLP the statement must be a neutral point of view and verifiable. You could argue whether it is neutral or not, but it is definitely not verifiable. This is not my requirement, it is W-BLP. 3. The statement is simply incorrect to characterize Prof. Carter only as a marine geologists. For these reasons, the statement should be removed. DrPaul0401 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed it again. Clearly it gives undue weight to one person's opinion. In general WP readers are not so stupid that they need a newspaper reporter to tell them what to think about an issue such as global warming. Redddogg (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is exactly the sort of source that we should be using, factual statements from a news article published by a reliable mainstream publication. Gamaliel (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- By a single non-notable (red link) journalist. Find a second source to corroborate this per WP:V (extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources) and WP:BLP (do no harm and remove poorly sourced material immediately). --GoRight (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- As usual, GoRight is making claims about policy that do not accurately represent what they actually say. In particular, there is nothing extraordinary in the sourced statement; it's a sourced, factual criticism of him that's fully in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Raul654 (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's not factual, it is one journalist's opinion. If this is not true you should have no trouble producing a second source. Per WP:BLP this is a disparaging remark and should be removed unless it can be reliably sourced as a statement of fact and one article stating the opinion of a non-notable journalist does not rise to the level required in this context.
- "As usual, GoRight is making claims about policy that do not accurately represent what they actually say." - This is all smoke on your part. Does WP:V not state that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources?" Does WP:BLP not state both "do no harm" and "remove poorly sourced material immediately?" You seem to forget that these policies are actually written down and people can verify that my statements regarding them are accurate. I'll also ask you to refrain from future personal attacks of this sort. --GoRight (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Blatant Self Promotion?
It looks like the subject of the bio has done a lot of the editing. There are three separate links to his personal website and a rather complete list of his papers which aren't of particular interest. According to his website, he is a paid speaker on climate issues, despite having no expertise in the field. If there are no objections in the next couple of days I'm going to clean up the self promotion a bit. Phil153 (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Go ahead. But keep in mind that WP's purpose is not to attack individuals. Nor is it even to fight global warming, as evil as that is. Redddogg (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
References
I just went through the footnotes and I notice that a lot of the article is sourced by primary sources, including Dr. Carter's own website. It probably would make both sides happier if the secondary sources, the articles written about him, were used more. Redddogg (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Are there any articles about him? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- If nothing has been written about him then the article should be deleted because he would be non-notable by WP's definition. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please review Misplaced Pages:Attack page, thank you. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please review WP:RS. The WP:BLP guidelines do not rule out critique, as long as its adequately sourced to a reliable source. Simply stating that the journalist is writing opinion, doesn't make it so. The article is printed in a respectable news-paper, by a respected journalist - and is not marked as an Op-Ed, or a column, thus having to adhere to the newspapers general review guidelines (which is what RS is specifically about). The information is also not surprising (ie. should invoke a red flag - since we can find equal descriptions elsewhere). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please review Misplaced Pages:Attack page, thank you. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)