Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:31, 13 July 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Books This 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia Low‑importance Heaven 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Blogs as cites?

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 reliable source, 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. --Pete Tillman (talk) 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 here to replace the Lambert cites. ► RATEL ◄ 00:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! This one is promising -- at least these critics have climatology credentials. And these reviews appear more balanced. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 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, Pete Tillman (talk) 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. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So add the responses from Plimer you feel have been left out. ► RATEL ◄ 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? Alex Harvey (talk) 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. ► RATEL ◄ 05:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What is meant by his actual responses to critics, "on one level"? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned it up a little to add context to some of these quotes... Alex Harvey (talk) 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.") -- Ref. 2 in article, 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, Pete Tillman (talk) 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. ► RATEL ◄ 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, Pete Tillman (talk) 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, WP:Assume good faith. Second, Fielding has technical training, which is pertinent to his investigation of the scientific background to AGW. Third, Fielding himself mentioned his training in his Australian article, 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." --Pete Tillman (talk) 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? ► RATEL ◄ 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... Alex Harvey (talk) 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 WP:ownership. This is getting ridiculous. --Pete Tillman (talk) 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 third opinion or RfC it. ► RATEL ◄

Ratel, WP:THIRD 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. Alex Harvey (talk) 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 WP:THIRD. 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 WP:NPOV. 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. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV: 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. Kininmonth thus until some of these are included, the article will not attain any balance or neutrality. Alex Harvey (talk) 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. ► RATEL ◄ 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 WP:NPOV. Your edit warring to remove the flag is spite to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Thanks, I'll put it back in, please leave it there this time. Alex Harvey (talk) 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. ► RATEL ◄ 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. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Critical" quotes are not supposed to be "neutral". Sheez! ► RATEL ◄ 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? --Pete Tillman (talk) 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. ► RATEL ◄ 04:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, always good to get an outside opinion. --Pete Tillman (talk) 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, Pete Tillman (talk) 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. ► RATEL ◄ 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. --Pete Tillman (talk) 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 . ► RATEL ◄ 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 something of a track record in that department. -- ChrisO (talk) 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: George_Monbiot#Solutions_to_control_the_climate

ChrisO, your contributions will be welcome, as things are getting a bit warm here...  ;-

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

Please take care to note how talk pages should be used, and that is only to improve the article, 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. ► RATEL ◄ 04:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

• Does the article contain neutrality issues?

• Is the Criticism section POV or simply properly sourced criticism?

• Should Senator Fielding be identified as having an engineering degree? diff

• Is Tillman's edit claiming that this book had influenced the Australian Government properly sourced, or is it OR and SYN? diff

Thanks for any comments.► RATEL ◄ 03:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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 appeal to authority.
• Book has changed Government actions — Tillman appears to be indulging in WP:OR and WP:SYN 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.► RATEL ◄ 03:33, 11 July 2009 (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 WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. Unfortunately I'm quite busy right at the moment but in a few days I may be able to add the Kininmonth stuff in. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Taking your points in sequence:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 undue weight 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 fringe theories and therefore Misplaced Pages's equal validity rules are invoked. Oh, and this is not a biography page, so we are not dealing with any BLP issues here. ► RATEL ◄ 09:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Tillman

• Neutrality: The article as a whole is not too bad now, much improved over (for example) this earlier version. The Criticism section has specific POV problems, as follows:

Colin Woodroffe's critique is here, 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.

Here is the current version in our article (no wikilinks):

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.

Not much trace of Woodroffe's original mixed review remains. Other examples of POV problems are listed above on this page.

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.

• Senator Fielding, an engineer by training: Fielding has technical training, which is pertinent to his investigation of the scientific background to AGW. Fielding himself mentioned his training in his Australian article, 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."

• Political impact in Australia. Here is the draft contribution in question:

Plimer's book is credited with contributing to a "a series of climb-downs as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government has been forced to delay its plans for cap-and-trade controls."

References for this draft

1. "Could Australia Blow Apart the Great Global Warming Scare?", by Robert Tracinski and Tom Minchin, Real Clear Politics, June 24, 2009.
2. "Cold facts dispel theories on warming", by William Kininmonth (meteorologist), The Australian, April 29, 2009
3. Strassel column, Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2009

As the contribution is basically a quote from an article at Real Clear Politics, 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, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

Comment by Kim D. Petersen

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.

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).

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).

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.

Both sections should be incorporated into a section on critical reception (ie. both praise, and critique mixed).

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.

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.

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.

(as a notabene: please include the RfC in some of the relevant wikiprojects to get a wide array of comment) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(brief comments, in haste)

• Václav Klaus'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. --Pete Tillman (talk) 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 WP:SYN based on non-reliable sources, but as i pointed out, the Fairfax article is reliable, and contains info on Fielding if it is needed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2009 (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 Real Clear Politics. And this isn't a biography -- how would BLP apply here? So I'm still puzzled. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

==

Comment by editor 1

Editor Ratel has removed the following comments without explanation:

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 WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. Unfortunately I'm quite busy right at the moment but in a few days I may be able to add the Kininmonth stuff in. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, if you edit away inconvenient comments from this page again without cause I will escalate. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by editor 2

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles
• Start-Class Australia articles
• Low-importance Australia articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• Start-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment