Talk:Andrew Montford

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. 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 articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

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 Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This 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

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Wikipedia, 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.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Weird ref issue

Weird ref issue this ref is from the lede, so it is ref1 ^[1]

This ref is in Climate change advocacy section but also says it`s ref1 and points to the same article as the first ref? In a Timesonline 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. He 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."^[2]

^ Webster, Ben (March 23, 2010). "Lord Oxburgh, the climate science peer, 'has a conflict of interest'". www.timesonline.co.uk. Retrieved 7 April 2010.
^ Online, Times (April 14, 2010). "Live debate: can we trust the outcome of the climategate inquiry?". The Times Online. Retrieved 15 April 2010.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 2010-04-15T17:15:33

Use of "climate skeptic" as label

The term "climate skeptic" can have very different meanings. It can either refer to climate change denial or scientific skepticism. In the interest of clarity, the link should be to one or the other of these, and not to global warming controversy. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to reread some of the relevant Wikipedia policies at this point. The statement is sourced to an article by Ben Webster; unfortunately the original is behind a paywall, but I have found what claims to be a copy at [1]. The key phrase here is "Andrew Montford, a climate-change sceptic who writes the widely-read Bishop Hill blog, said that Lord Oxburgh had a 'direct financial interest in the outcome' of his inquiry.". He never uses the words "deny", "denial", or "denier". As such it seems that you are breaking WP:SYNTH. If you believe that the page global warming controversy is not appropriate, then the neatest solution would simply be to unlink the phrase: it is better that a phrase not be linked than that bit be linked inappropriately.

You might also wish to review Help:Minor edit, and in partcular the text "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this, Prof. Jones. Always a pleasure to see your contributions here. Best, for 2014, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC), Professional geologist, amateur climatologist[reply]

The statement that Bishop Hill is a "blog for climate-change sceptics" is SYNTH. The cited article by Ben Webster never says that. Webster in fact only refers to the Blog with this sentence: "Andrew Montford, a climate-change sceptic who writes the widely-read Bishop Hill blog..." The reference is behind a paywall but appears to be reproduced here. A more direct citation for Bishop Hill and more neutral description of Montford's views would be a link to the blog itself and to the author's self-description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHaveAMastersDegree (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a point: be creful with your use of WP:PRIMARY sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK point taken. Thanks. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: IHaveAMastersDegree has now been blocked. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best if the source were changed to one that is not behind a paywall. I would recommend this Washington Post story^[1] which explicitly categorizes Bishop Hill (in the headline) as "deniers". It is clear, even 5 years ago, that journalists considered "climate sceptic" to be a euphemism for "climate change deniers". IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That headline says "BBC admonished for giving climate change deniers equal air time" but the actual article says "Andrew Montford, who runs the Bishop Hill climate sceptic blog". So no. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When a newspaper story uses "climate change denier" and "climate sceptic" interchangeably, they are saying that it means exactly the same thing. But as we all know, the term "sceptic" in this context is completely ambiguous. Wikipedia pages should use the more straightforward and less ambiguous term when given the choice, to avoid confusion. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of objections to the previous comment, I have made minor changes consistent with it. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal is classic WP:SYN so I have reverted it. You need clear sources which actually directly support the text you wish to include. This is doubly true in a BLP, and triply true to say something in Wikipedia's own voice rather than as a view ascribed to others. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sullivan, Gail (7 July 2014). "BBC admonished for giving climate change deniers equal air time". Washington Post. Retrieved 23 May 2019. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Andrew Montford. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew Montford. 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:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://beta.thecourier.co.uk/Living/Outdoors/article/348/bishop-hill-the-blogger-putting-climate-science-to-test.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713101752/http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/09/checking-the-hockey-team/ to http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/09/checking-the-hockey-team/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/debates/copenhagen_article/9056

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) 10:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[The_Times-1] Webster, Ben (March 23, 2010). "Lord Oxburgh, the climate science peer, 'has a conflict of interest'". www.timesonline.co.uk. Retrieved 7 April 2010.

[The_Times2-2] Online, Times (April 14, 2010). "Live debate: can we trust the outcome of the climategate inquiry?". The Times Online. Retrieved 15 April 2010.

[3] Sullivan, Gail (7 July 2014). "BBC admonished for giving climate change deniers equal air time". Washington Post. Retrieved 23 May 2019. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1]

[2]

[1]