| Revision as of 09:47, 26 April 2010 editDarknessShines2 (talk | contribs)11,264 edits →POV: moved from my talk← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:48, 26 April 2010 edit undoDarknessShines2 (talk | contribs)11,264 edits actually no, just confuses the issueNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| {{od}} | {{od}} | ||
| There was no blp violation, self revert ] (]) 09:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | There was no blp violation, self revert ] (]) 09:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Can I recommend that you read my last post at the talk page one more time? Especially the last sentence. I actually agreed with you that the fact that she engages with skeptics is notable :) ] (]) 09:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Then why the removal of her posts and links on sceptic blogs? As the article now stands it looks like she wagged her finger over at real climate and that`s about it. I`m not happy with the wholesale removal of reliably sourced material which is a notable moment in her life ] (]) 09:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well I didn't remove it, but I can understand why WMC did. It makes the same point over and over. Add a sentence noting that she's posted at WUWT or that she's engaged with skeptics or something like that. I think that's all the addition we need on that. | |||
| ::I'll add that you should also try to add some stuff unrelated to climategate. She's been in academia for 20 years and her article sounds like the only thing she's ever done is slag off at the climategate crew. That's what WMC seems to be so cranky about. ] (]) 09:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ask the average guy who she is, they will not know her from her academic career, the ywill know her for her responses to climatgate and her willingness to talk to sceptics. If wmc felt it was unbalanced he should have added to the article, not gut it. ] (]) 09:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Article additions== | ==Article additions== | ||
Revision as of 09:48, 26 April 2010
 | Biography Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Template:Community article probation
POV
The section on views on climate change is grossly one-sided and amounts to a BLP violation. I don't have time to fix it now William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- On second thoughts I'm right - the section as it stands is a BLP violation, by grossly misrepresenting her views, so I've removed it. Don't put it back until it correctly represents her position: viz: support for basic GW theory; disagreement with some recent IPCC methods William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Made an attempt. Didn't see the need for a separate section for "views on climate change". Thepm (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reinserted reliably sourced material which was removed. There was no blp violation here at all. Unless you think she did not say what she has said? mark nutley (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the grossly one-sided representation of Curry's views is a clear BLP iolation, and I've removed the material again. The fact that it is reliably sourced is irrelevant; the point is that it is grossly partisan and unrepresentative William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know whether it could really be classified as a BLP violation, but it's irrelevant. MN - think about what point you're trying to clarify for the reader. I assume it's that she has taken some climate scientists to task over their approach. That point's made by the sentence; While she supports the scientific opinion on climate change, she has written that Climatologists should be more transparent in their dealings with the public saying, "This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside". Labouring that point is just piling on (is there a wiki essay about piling on? There ought to be). Thepm (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is no blp violation here, wmc self revert as you are in breach of your 1r parole. Thepm, it is highly notable that she has tried to talk to sceptics, and that she has posted on sceptic blogs. I will of course put this back if wmc refuses to self revert and continues to break his paroles mark nutley (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- MN - bearing in mind that the point that she has been critical of climatologists has already been made, the deleted material can be summarised as follows;
- 1. She's critical of some of her colleagues
- 2. She's critical of the IPCC
- 3. She's critical of Climatologists
- 4. She posted on WUWT (ie directly engaged skeptics)
- 5. She's critical of scientists
- I recommend against you putting it all back because right now, you don't have consensus to do that. On the other hand, I do think it's notable that she's directly engaged skeptics and a single sentence to illustrate that would probably be worthwhile. Thepm (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- WMC had no consensus to remove it, berate him not me. Can you explain why you think it is not a notable event that she posts and discusses issues on sceptic blogs? It is notable. The removal of reliably sourced material without reason is against policy, and it is going back in, it is a notable event and should be properly recorded mark nutley (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus is irrelevant for BLP William M. Connolley (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- WMC had no consensus to remove it, berate him not me. Can you explain why you think it is not a notable event that she posts and discusses issues on sceptic blogs? It is notable. The removal of reliably sourced material without reason is against policy, and it is going back in, it is a notable event and should be properly recorded mark nutley (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- MN - bearing in mind that the point that she has been critical of climatologists has already been made, the deleted material can be summarised as follows;
- There is no blp violation here, wmc self revert as you are in breach of your 1r parole. Thepm, it is highly notable that she has tried to talk to sceptics, and that she has posted on sceptic blogs. I will of course put this back if wmc refuses to self revert and continues to break his paroles mark nutley (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know whether it could really be classified as a BLP violation, but it's irrelevant. MN - think about what point you're trying to clarify for the reader. I assume it's that she has taken some climate scientists to task over their approach. That point's made by the sentence; While she supports the scientific opinion on climate change, she has written that Climatologists should be more transparent in their dealings with the public saying, "This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside". Labouring that point is just piling on (is there a wiki essay about piling on? There ought to be). Thepm (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
There was no blp violation, self revert mark nutley (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Article additions
As may be obvious, I had an article almost ready to post also. Some seams still show, but it's certainly time Curry had an article. Pete Tillman (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
POV?
MN has tagged this but the discussion that should be on the talk page is missing. MN: please explain why you have tagged this (with the wrong tag too, but we don't expect miracles) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Categories: