Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:46, 29 April 2010

Template:Community article probation

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

England This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Blogging (inactive) This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging Internet culture This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Science This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience Environment This environment-related redirect 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

Premature?

It looks like this may have been prematurely promoted to mainspace. Anyway, it needed lots of corrections William M. Connolley (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It`s fine as it is, please note i have reverted your removal of well sourced content. Thank you mark nutley (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is fine. Indeed, I think that your version is POV and have said so William M. Connolley (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully expected that :-), sadly the only crit i can find is the desmogblog one. Now before you go tearing stuff apart could you let me know what exactly you think is not neutral? mark nutley (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you expected that problem, then the onus was on you to address it up front. "Writing for the enemy" and all that. Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific, the issue isn't POV in your coverage of the blog (there's almost not coverage of the blog) - the problem lies with the fact that the article is used to present one side of an issue without balance. The whole "in universe" issue again. Guettarda (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a serious Misplaced Pages:Coatrack issue here. Most of the content isn't about the blog. Guettarda (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

All of the content is about the blog, and coatrack is not policy, it`s an essay and has nothing to do with content, please post what you think is not about the blog and we`ll discuss it mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an essay that's useful to help editors understand what should and shouldn't be in an article. You'd do well to heed it. Guettarda (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability?

I don't see anything here that meets the general notability or website notability guidelines.

1. The Ridley article simply states that Montford "runs a blog called 'Bishop Hill'". Simple statement that it exists, does not amount to "significant coverage".
   1. OK, so Ridley actually talks about the Jesus post a little and its impact.
2. The Harrabin article says "Climate sceptics on the sceptic website Bishop Hill ridiculed the MPs' findings". A little more here (it's hard to imagine less than Ridley's coverage) but how is this "significant coverage"? This does not "address the subject directly in detail" - it addresses the subject indirectly (it's very much a passing reference) and has no detail about the site.
3. Orlowski's mention of the site is only passing mention: "The story quickly made its way round the blogosphere - thanks to Bishop Hill, Climate Audit and others"
4. The Batty and Adam article similarly makes only passing mention to the site: "The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog..."
5. Littlemore's mention is similarly trivial: "So, what do you say, Steve McIntyre, Bishop Hill, Chris Monckton and all the others..."
6. Delingpole finally gets beyond the utterly trivial, but it's still not "significant coverage": "Fortunately the great Bishop Hill has been doing some digging. ... But as Bishop Hill has discovered it’s rather more sinister than that." But this still doesn't "address the subject in detail".
7. In his own blog, Delingpole's mention is similarly trivial: "Bishop Hill has unearthed a jaw-dropping critique of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. His post’s so delightful there’s no need for embellishment" - it says nothing about the blog, it merely affirms Montford's reporting. (Note that Delingpole seems to conflate Bishop Hill, the blog, with Montford, the person).
8. Watts post is harder to evaluate. It's non-trivial coverage of the content of the blog, although it also says nothing about the blog. It doesn't "address the subject in detail" though. Borderline, I'd say. The thing is that this is a blog reposting content from another blog. And that's a problem. Marginally notable blogs reposting content from other blogs does not really establish notability.

The problem is clear if you read WP:WEB: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. FiveFour of these sources make utterly trivial mention of the site, while the fifth says just a little bit about it. Two more, both blogs by Delingpole, get beyond utterly trivial, but don't make it to "signficant", while the last may be significant, but just by way of a repost of content. And it comes from just another blog, that we really wouldn't use as a reliable source for very much. "Multiple non-trivial published works" this is not. Guettarda (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Additions underlined Guettarda (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe being mentioned by multipile reliable sources give notablity, one of those sources is the BBC a blog being mentioned by the beeb is highly notable mark nutley (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, your belief is mistaken. You should read the guidelines I linked to. You need non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Not trivial, passing mention. Guettarda (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well do an AFD if you think it`s not notable mate, i think it is, lets get some others to comment mark nutley (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Very constructive. Why not just add some non-trivial coverage? If it's notable, it should have some. Guettarda (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Another possible RS: it is decribed as "widely read" by Ben Webster in the Times. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

With ridley in The Spectator, Webster in The Times and the fact that the BBC have covered this blog can we lose the notability tag? mark nutley (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you still haven't addressed the concerns by Guettarda. Significant coverage in secondary sources - not "mentioned in passing" in secondary sources. (You really really do need to check out and try to understand WP:NOTABLE) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have, the three sources i mention above do more than mention the blog in passing mark nutley (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of this being commented on? Or can i remove the tags? mark nutley (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Any objections at all to the tags being removed? mark nutley (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You need to find some sources that meet WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Asking the same question over and over without doing anything to solve the problem doesn't solve the problem. Guettarda (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So you don`t think the speccie the beeb and the times is enough? mark nutley (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read my explanation, dated April 15, that starts this section. The Ridley article from the Spectator just gets over the non-trivial bar. The Harrabin and Webster articles make trivial mention. I have explained the first two already. Mention in the Webster article is about as trivial as you can get - it says that Montford writes the blog. Guettarda (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why are you even bothering to edit it? Just do an afd if you think it has no hope mark nutley (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say merge it with Montford's article. In essence, Bishop Hill is Montford, not so? Delingpole, for example, seemed to be calling the man Bishop Hill. Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd say merge the book too, since the book, the blog and the man are all closely intertwined. I honestly think that if the three of them were combined you'd have an article with some substance, as opposed to three very short articles, all scrambling for content. Guettarda (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no. You can`t merge an article about a blog into a blp, the ref situation would be a nightmare. The book is more than notable enough to have it`s own article so that`s a no also. Just afd it and be done mark nutley (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd say merge the book too, since the book, the blog and the man are all closely intertwined - yes, makes a lot of sense. See-also Singer and NIPCC William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And again, no both the book and montford are notable enough for their own articles, as i said do an afd on this and be done with it mark nutley (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are fond of repeating yourself. However saying the same wrong thing multiple times doesn't make it any truer William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If Montford or the Hockey Stick illusion were not notable enough they would already have been AFD, Both have more than enough coverage to show notability, If you feel they do not then try an AFD on them, And as stated if you feel this article is not notable enough then again, AFD is thataway

Jumping in: I agree that this blog doesn't look notable in its own right and that merging this article as well as The Hockey Stick Illusion‎ into Andrew Montford would be the best way to handle this constellation of topics. Yilloslime _C 20:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to my above reply, there ill be no merging of articles mark nutley (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexia

Marknutley, who is apparently the owner of this article, has removed the statment that "As of April 2010, Bishop Hill was unranked at Alexa, a website which measures web traffic," stating is his edit summary "remove alexa, it measures squarespace, not blogs hosted on it." Alexia chooses not to rank this blog - it could, in the way it choses to rate individual blogs on blogspot.com. I don't know why this sourced information is being censored. Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not censoring you, Alexa has no details for this blog, only for the host. What is the point of having that in the article? Shall we write, this blog has no stats from alexa as alexa only seems to cover the host? I`m looking at quantcast now, it would appear you need an account with them to actually add code to your site so your site gets tracked. If this is the case then that`ll have to go as well as we have no way of knowing if montford has this code embedded into his site mark nutley (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I wrote. Quantcast says they estimate traffic for the blog. Are you saying they are not a reliable source? Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would agree with Mark. Alexa and Quantcast are not reliable to data on small or niche sites. Alexa is never - Quantcast might - if BH is a subscriber (ie. they have an invisible counting image or the like). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Why always so aggressive? Calm down a little. Now, how do you know alexa can track blogs on squarespace as they do on blogspot? You know when this blog was on .blogspot alexa ranked it at 12,797,002 It says on the page you have linked to "Sorry, your search for bishophill.squarespace.com produced no results." This is because alexa does not track blogs on squarespace. So yes, in this case it is not reliable. But as i have been told by yourself, sources depend on context mark nutley (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, you are saying alexia is not a reliable source for what alexia does and does not rank? Hipocrite (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not what i said, i said alexa does not track blogs on squarespace. If they do not track them then they can`t have any stats for them, can i make this any simpler for you? You are confusing subdomain tracking with domain tracking. mark nutley (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree that alexia is a good source for what alexia does and does not track? Do you agree that alexia does not track this blog? Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Here`s an example of want i mean star-trek-games.com and A subdomain on the main site perhaps this will help clear it up mark nutley (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that alexia does not track individual blogs on squarespace (but I used OR to do so - I cannot find a source for this info). One blog on squarespace is this blog. Alexia does not track this blog. I have included this information on the article. Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

And on quantcast no results as this site does not have the code required embedded for them to track it. BTW, the site gets on average 4k hits a month mark nutley (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quantcast has demographic information on that page. We could include that demographic information in an article about the site. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no they have at best a guess. How can they have information if they don`t have the ability to track the site? mark nutley (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying Quantcast is not a reliable source for blog traffic estimates? Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you incapable of reading? For the last time, unless you have their code embedded in your index.php then they can`t track your site. What part of this do you not get? mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The part where you aren't willing to tell me if Quantcast is or is not a reliable source for blog traffic estimates. I think they are reliable - if they give an estimate, I don't mind using it. Apparently, you don't think they're reliable - you think that sometimes their estimates are reliable and sometimes they are not reliable. Is that accurate? Hipocrite (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you are obviously trying it on here. Read what i have written you have had your anwser mark nutley (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's make sure we all stay consistent with what we say at Talk:DeSmogBlog‎ :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Per the consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard neither alexia or quantcast are reliable. I`ll remove them tommorow mark nutley (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats an overestimation of what the RS/N board said - but i do agree that it isn't reliable when we are talking about small or specialized sites. Try not to generalize what is and isn't an RS - most things are reliable in some cases and unreliable in others. Which is also why there isn't such a thing as a list of reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Irony

Merge suggestion

I (and it would seem, several others) think this and Andrew Montford and The Hockey Stick Illusion should be merged. Anyone care which way? The discussion seems to have begun here. I'd be inclined to suggest that the book is the most notable, so merge there. That is the default; anyone care to argue for any other direction? Note to the usual suspects: please don't argue "no no this shall not be!" That is an arguement to save for the merge proprosal itself William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, as stated both The Hockey Stick Illusion and Andrew Montford are notable enough for their own articles. If you feel this article fails notability then do an AFD mark nutley (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly about which way to do it, but my inclination would be discuss everything under the umbrella of Andrew Montford. The book may be the most notable of the three, but it seems more logical (to me) for an article about a man to discuss that man's works (a book and a blog) than for an article about a book to talk about a blog by the same author. Yilloslime _C 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Should`nt there be a tag at the top of this page saying this proposed merger is under discussion? mark nutley (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Like I said: Note to the usual suspects: please don't argue "no no this shall not be!" That is an arguement to save for the merge proprosal itself. This isn't the merge proposal. This is a little discussion to see if we can decide which is the obvious way to suggest the merge. Once there actually is a merge proposal I'll put up the tags and you can say "no no this must not be!" William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Like i said, not gonna happen mark nutley (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN much, Mark? Yilloslime _C 21:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As far as I see both the book and this article both has substantial cover. Just added the Times article to back up widely-read. What the book has to do with this blog I'm really curious about? Nsaa (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say under the book. The book is the most notable of the three - its what makes Montford interesting in the eyes of the press, and the blog seems mostly to be concerned about items in the book. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally (as a comment to Mark) the book is the most likely item to survive an AfD - since articles on books are generally considered valuable additions (iirc). The new BLP rules would make it extremely hard for AM to survive (barely notable), and the blog is simply only mentioned in conflation with either the book or AM. So it is really the best spot - if you want this to survive :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks, . Both the book and montford are notable enough to have their own articles, if not then this would already have happened to them mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Another paper saying the blog is widely read Andrew Montford, a climate-change skeptic who writes the widely-read Bishop Hill blog mark nutley (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean "Another unreliable source, that just barely mentions..."? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Another one The Times was following up a story by Andrew Montford, better known for the blog Bishop Hill, and author of a new book on the Hockey Stick scandal Gotta be pretty notable for the times to follow your stories Bishop Hill: Gonzo science and the Hockey Stick mark nutley (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not every topic meets that our pitifully low notability criteria necessarily needs to have its own article. Sometimes it makes more sense not to split out something from a main article, even when it technically could have its own article. The question here is: how are the blog, the book, and the author best handled. Maybe there are in fact great reasons to treat each one separately, but it seems to me that the best way to justice to all three (and the reader, for that matter) is to handle them in one article since they a so inter-related, and there's not really much material to be covered in stand alone blog and author articles that isn't mentioned in the book article. Yilloslime _C 23:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone says something really convincing soon, I'm going to go for (i.e., to prevent panic, I'm going to propose merge-to) the book. YS's idea of the Man is plausible, but (a) I don't think he is notable; certainly less so than his book, and (b) it weakens the BLP issues a bit to use the book. If he turns out to write another exciting book, or becomes independently notable, we can always undo all this William M. Connolley (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

For BLP reasons, I would prefer to merge the Montford article into this one and keep this article. Cla68 (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see good arguments for merging the three articles down into two or possibly even one. The book article is certainly the strongest if there is a full scale merge, but my preference would be to merge down to two, the book and the blog; I struggle to see anyway in which Montford is notable except as the author of the book or the owner of the blog. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

have you looked to see if he is notable? Thus far he has been interviewed, he is very notable. I have also begun to move this article over onto the Montford article, so if a merge happens it may as well go there.

In a Times Online live special which featured The Times environment editor Ben Webster, Andrew Montford, and Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment debated. Montford said in the debate "OK, it's pretty clear that the three investigations are not intended to get at the truth. All of the panels have had highly questionable memberships and remits that divert them away from the issues. There are some really, really serious allegations that have been ignored by both the panels that have reported so far.

Montford has been interviewed by the Newshour show on the BBC World Service over the findings by the University Of East Anglia`s findings into the Climategate Controversy he said "I made the point that the scope of the panel missed key allegations and cited Ross McKitrick's point that Jones had inserted baseless statements into the IPCC reports". When the interviewer asked if skeptics would ever be happy he replied "we would, if presented with evidence that the allegations were false". The Channel 4 programme "The Report" Asked Montford to look at some of the questions Phil Jones might be asked during the Parliamentary Investigation into the controversy.

In an interview with The Times he questioned the appointment of Lord Oxburgh to the panel on conflict of interest grounds, writing "Lord Oxburgh has a direct financial interest in the outcome of his inquiry. mark nutley (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding - the Montford part of the BBC Newshour radio show wasn't an interview as much as a comment - He was on for less than 2 minutes! - talk about puffing up notability - Doh! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

He has been on that show twice, any reason in particular you did not mention the other refs? mark nutley (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In one of the news stories from my brother's funeral last year, I was (mis)quoted, and they published a picture of me. (Sadly, that story never made it to the online version of the paper). The story itself made the front page of all the newspapers for several days. But guess what - even if their deaths had been notable (in a Misplaced Pages sense, which they weren't), my part in it would not have been notable, nor would my sister (who was quoted by all the newspapers) or my mother (who was also featured in the news coverage). Passing mention in a larger story does not convey the notability of the even to you. Guettarda (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss, however this is different. Montford is being asked his opinons by these news outlets, they ask his opinion because he is notable mark nutley (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the top candidate of the three is Montford. If you look at the book, you'll see that the only non-trivial mention in a reliable source is Ridley's pair of articles. Booker simply mentions the book (for a full account, see...), and I don't think that Gilder's review counts as a reliable source - it's a blog post, it comes from the Discovery Institute (which has a poor history when it comes to facts and fact-checking), and there's little reason to think that Gilder's opinion is terribly notable. The book is borderline when it comes to WP:BN. Montford, on the other hand, is the author of the blog, he's the author of the book. It's his opinion that interest some people. He's the one with the achievement of writing the book. Guettarda (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If gilder is not notable then why is there an article about him? And his giving a review of the book has nothing to do with the discovery institute either. you omit the courier article review as well. mark nutley (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say Gilder isn't notable. I said that his opinion, on this issue, isn't notable enough for us to draw from a self-published source. Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Also now Seth Roberts mark nutley (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Another blog post by a person with no special expertise on the subject. Guettarda (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion#Merge_proposal William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Please feel free to comment Here mark nutley (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking for self revert - assuming AGF

I've just asked ChrisO (talk · contribs) to self revert at User_talk:ChrisO#Please_self_revert to Slowjoe17 at 2010-04-24T10:31:29. He has removed a host of WP:RS sourced stuff. Nsaa (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See my commentary at the foot of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bishop Hill (blog). I've removed a lot of coatracking which should never have been in the article in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Completely in line with policy - and this is not a new problem, as has been pointed out in #Notability?. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of reliably sourced material, please do not be so disruptive again mark nutley (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, rather than reverting, why don't you address the issues I've raised? For your benefit, here's the list of issues, copied from the AfD discussion linked above:

• Para 2, "Andrew Orlowski, writing ..." - passing mention only; not about the blog itself;
• Para 3, "A post on the blog ..." - probably the only substantive fact in the entire article;
• Para 4, "Paul Dennis, a scientist ..." - passing mention only; not about the blog itself;
• Para 5, "Dr Judith Curry in an interview ..." - entirely comprised of blog comments (non-RS); focuses on things written by Andrew Montford, not about the blog itself;
• Para 6, "Anthony Watts wrote ..." - solely blog-sourced (non-RS); about Andrew Montford, not about the blog itself;
• Para 7, "Steve McIntyre on his blog ..." - solely blog-sourced (non-RS); about an article written by Andrew Montford, not about the blog itself.

In short, the article lacks any substantive commentary about the blog itself, as opposed to its proprietor or specific things that he has written; 9 of 17 sources are other blogs; of the remaining sources, only one (the Spectator article) has anything other than a passing mention of the blog. The article as originally written is basically one big coatrack, puffing Andrew Montford or his writings but saying very little about its ostensible subject, the Bishop Hill blog. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your wholesale removal of material from this article is disruptive, especially as you are voting for it to be deleted. mark nutley (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How about dealing with the substantive issues I've raised? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's what looks like disruptive behavior, and ChrisO (talk · contribs) should take this polite, and discuss every sourced statement he want to remove. What about trying to improve the article? And before anybody tries to remove this again. Please explain show that this is not WP:RS . Nsaa (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already done this above. How about dealing with the issues I raised rather than running away from them? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I endorse ChrisO's analysis and that of Guettarda, above. Before restoring the removed content, how addressing the substantive points raised? Yilloslime _C 21:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Blanking of cited content

There is an AFD and a merger discussion going on, please discuss any issues anyone may have one at a time and waiting a day or two for the result of the AFD is also a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. An ongoing AfD does not preclude editors from working on article, and that include removing poorly sourced material and material of questionable relevance. Yilloslime _C 21:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a section above that directly addresses this. How about addressing the concerns raised there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, this issue of "cited content" is missing the point. The problem is not that the content is cited. It's that much of it comes from non-reliable sources (i.e. blogs) and has nothing to do with the ostensible subject of this article, viz. the Bishop Hill blog. It's mere puffery - praise for Montford personally and/or his writings, rather than anything substantive about the blog itself. It simply isn't relevant. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you please argue. Here we have well sourecd paragraphs, and some of you just remove it anyway: . As far as I see its backed by BBC, Guardian and The Register. Restore it. Ahh. I speak "broken English", I've learn something new today about the difficult English word "Blogs", "Blogs" like The BBC, The Guardian and The Register! Nsaa (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't sourcing, the issue is relevance as explained above. The articles aren't about the blog, or Montford, they merely mention the blog in passing. Neither the sources themselves nor the way they are used in the article add anything to the reader's understanding of Bishop Hill. Yilloslime _C 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not fix the text instead of just blanking it? Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the text. Why couldn't you others do it? It's important that the reliable sources that mention the blog aren't blanked, because editors at the AfD discussion may need to see them in making a decision on whether to keep the article or not. Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not worth fixing. BBC mentioned blog once. So did the Register. Wooptido. How is this relevant? How is this encyclopedic? Yilloslime _C 02:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You really don't understand why a mention in the BBC and The Register is relevant? Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Really I don't. Misplaced Pages is not a directory nor an arbitrary collection of information. We shouldn't be cataloging every time a newspaper makes a passing of the blog.Yilloslime _C 05:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read DeSmogBlog, for which I was the primary editor, and check the sources. You'll see that that is often how we write articles. Cla68 (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of bad articles out there--not to say that DeSmogBlog is one of them (I haven't looked at yet). But if it is filled with cruft and trivial material, that doesn't mean we should allow similar articles to accumulate cruft and trivial material. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, etc. Yilloslime _C 05:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC

You are of the mistaken impression that people think this is good idea (and encyclopedic). Trivial material such as being mentioned in one sentence in an article about something completely different - doesn't elevate to notable mention. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, many of the DeSmogBlog sources do exactly that, and it passed GA review. On another note, do you think it's a good idea to remove sources from an article during an AfD discussion in which you voted to delete? Cla68 (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Removing sourced but trivial content that may give the mistaken impression of more "significant coverage" than really exists is a very good idea, regardless of whether one !voted keep or delete. Yilloslime _C 06:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree. I've removed it, and I've removed the similar coatracking in DeSmogBlog as well. Passing mentions do not merit coverage - it's a basic issue of weighting and relevance to an article that is supposed to be about the blog itself, not about its author or the subjects it covers. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Chris, the DeSmogBlog content was arrived at by consensus and collaboration of a number of different editors. Check the page history and the talk page. It was also reviewed and approved by an independent Good Article editor. So, are you sure you're justified in unilaterally blanking that section? If not, are you justified in doing so here also? Cla68 (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If the sourcing was just as bad as the sourcing here. Then most certainly it is justified. As i've said before: This tells us more about how little GA means in terms of content than about whether it really is a good article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing properly cited content establishing that the website is cited in media sources is inappropriate. It's particularly disturbing that this blanking is being carried out while there is an active AfD underway. KimDablestein and ChrisO should cease thir abusive behavior and restore the content post haste. Electroshoxcure (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should address this issue in the section above. The trouble is that there is no significant mention in the reliable sources, most are passing mentions, and they seem just to have been added to inflate the notability of the blog... As far as i can tell not a single one of the reliable sources (and the unreliable ones) are about the blog. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley's most recent addition is a perfect demonstration of this problem. It's from another blogger (hence not a reliable source), and it's solely about a claim made by the blogger, Andrew Montford. It's not about the blog, nor is it about the blog's author. I note that neither Marknutley nor any of the other defenders of the coatracking that's been going on here have bothered to make any substantive response to the detailed review I posted in the section above. Is their case really so weak that they dare not make it? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you, your constant removal of well sourced material is wp:disruptive stop now. The ref i added meets all the criteria for wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Where's your substantive response to my detailed review? We're waiting here. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The BBC source, as one example, specifically identifies this blog and the comments on it. Your disruptive and abusive behavior needs to stop. Electroshoxcure (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's review that source to illustrate the problem with this coatracked quotefarm. The entirety of what it says about BH is as follows: "Climate sceptics on the sceptic website Bishop Hill ridiculed the MPs' findings. One asked: "Is it April fools already?" Another commented: "No-one with half brain cell will view this conclusion as anything other than a hasty and not very subtle establishment cover-up."" The substantive information we get from this is (1) BH is a denialist website (which we know already); and (2) denialists on the blog ridiculed the MPs' findings. The latter is off-topic for this article because it tells us nothing about the blog itself. It tells us only what the response of its readers was to the MPs' findings. That might possibly be relevant for Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy, the subject of that discussion, but then you would have to make the case for the views of BH readers being in any way significant in the wider context, which they're not. The bottom line is that the quote has no direct relevance to an article that is supposed to tell the reader about this blog rather than what its readers think of any random issue. As a counter-example, take a look at Talking Points Memo, which tells us a lot about the history and operations of that particular blog but doesn't fluff it up with a lot of random quotes and passing mentions. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets take this one at a time

James Delingpole writing in his blog for the Telegraph wrote "Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen."

1. Delingpole, James (November 27th, 2009). "Climategate: the whitewash begins". The Telegraph. Retrieved 29 April 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Thrash it out here

I added the above ref, which Chriso promptly removed stating This isn't "well-cited" at all - it's from a blog (a non-RS) and it's a trivial tangential passing mention which tells us nothing about this blog Now the source is obviously wp:rs per this Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists So the source is not the problem. And i do not see how it can be described as a trivial tangential passing mention when the article cited says the following Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill and More on Lord Rees’s resolutely neutral position on AGW – as posted on the Bishop Hill blog. That`s two mentions in one article. So chris, what is the problem with this one? mark nutley (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If we were to write a sentence describing what this refrence actually tells us about the source, as opposed to just turning the article into a quotefarm the sentence would be "The blog was mentioned by James Delingpole in his blog for the Telegraph." That's the only information about the blog that adding all of that adds to the article. Now, if you were to say "That's important information!" I'd say two things. Firstly, I'd say "Honestly? It's important to note that some polemic opinion column mentions the blog a lot?" and then I'd say "If it was really important, other obviously reliable sources would mention that Delingpole cites the blog." Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks Mark for (finally!) engaging with the issues that've been raised. And thanks Hipocrite - you've put in a nutshell what the problem is here. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So what you are both saying is that even though a reliable source has quoted extensively from the blog, and mentions that fact twice, you think it is a trivial mention? mark nutley (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because it's not about the blog. This article is supposed to be about the blog, not about its author or his opinions or what other people think of his opinions. Delingpole is doing nothing more than mentioning one particular post which he wants to highlight. His mention tells us absolutely nothing substantive about the blog itself, as Hipocrite rightly points out. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, according to this which says In depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines and this is exactly what this source does mark nutley (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole is a journalist with a reputation for promoting fringe views, and his blog is not a reliable source about anyone but himself: in quoting rs you missed out part of the sentence – "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." What evidence do you have that the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control? Where's the reliable source? . . dave souza, talk 21:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• NA-Class England-related pages
• NA-importance England-related pages
• WikiProject England pages
• Redirect-Class Internet culture pages
• NA-importance Internet culture pages
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• Redirect-Class science pages
• NA-importance science pages
• NA-Class Environment pages
• NA-importance Environment pages