Jump to content

Talk:Ian Plimer/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Article clutter, WP:Weight concerns

1. Monbiot debate: we really need a third-party comment, rather than quoting Monbiot, Plimer's opponent, as to the outcome. At one point, I thought this item had been reduced to a line or two? -- which seems an appropriate WP:Weight.

2. Copenhagen Climate Challenge: this appears to have been a very minor event, and is overweighted at present.

3. Australian Skeptics: this minor and debatable point should be deleted, imo. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. We have a 3rd party source, Quadrant. Please check the page properly before raising frivolous, knee jerk objections.
  2. Not minor at all — was reported all over the place.
  3. POV objection; ignored. More BAU per PT. ► RATEL ◄ 01:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
WTH's BAU?? IAC, TS cleaned it up. Thx, Tony. Retagged Monbiot on Monbiot as unbalanced -- leave it be, please, Ratel: I hope you agree it's a problem. BTW, AGF. Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Plimer's own opinions on Climate email issue

Plimer has clearly stated his position online -- and his opinions, as such, wou.d be properly attributed to him. Editors, moreover, have removed his opinions due to "BLP concerns." I would like to know which living persons would be adversely affected by ascribing Plimer's opinions to Plimer. If none would be affected, then that is an invalid reason for keeping Plimer;s opinions out of an article about Plimer. The source, being a "blog" under editorial control of a journalistic organization is citable at least for opinions of the writers of the blog. Collect (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He is making serious claims about other people which are also under WP:BLP protection, as the comments amount to libel they are certainly not allowed under BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The material is being properly cited as opinion -- which does not appear to be in the category of claim which is affected by WP:BLP since no individuals are named as having committed any crimes. And I fail to see why "libel" is invoked here -- can you elucidate exactly what part is legally a problem for Wikipedia? Can you cite the WP policy which states that concern over "libel" affects material cited as opinion? Has Plimer been sued for libel at all on this? Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with your reading of policy, Kim. On the contrary, Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Attribute_assertions says, "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant." As for Wikipedia:BLP, there is no such thing as "BLP protection" from criticism. On the contrary, BLP says that "Articles should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. ...Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources..." subject to considerations of due weight. --DGaw (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I would support Kim on this issue, if his opinion about this person are controversial then it would be a blp issue even if these comments were correctly attributed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Might you show me where in policy is the statement that a person saying something nasty about a group of people who are not individually named, without any claim of a crime, is automatically against BLP? I can show you, for example in the Joe the Plumber article, actual examples of accusation of crimes which are allowed in a BLP. At what point do you become concerned enough to delete them? Collect (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If it is challenged as it is being here, it would be ok if the comment was a general reflection of the average ish commentary but if it is excessively from one side of the situation then it could be said to have been cherry picked and not representative of the general position. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I hate to be the one to tell you this -- but people with strong opinions do not word them to be reflective of the opinion someone else wants them to have <g>. As he is not an "average ish" person, it is strange to bar his opinions because they are not "average ish." Are you averring that the material did not properly reflect Plimer's opinions as written? That would be one objection. If, however, they accurately reflect his opinion, then it would be improper for WP to alter his opinion. Are you rather saying that because he has a vastly different opinion from what you aver to be "average ish" that therefore his opinion ought not be in an article on him? I would love to see precedent for that argument, please. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We can quote Plimers opinions freely, except when they clash against WP:BLP. And in this case they do. BLP is not limited to any persons biography - but applies on all articles (and talk-pages) that contains claims about living persons. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to speak openly, imo it would be similar to adding the opinion of David Cameron about Gordon Brown, not really objective, it would be more reflective of an opinionated and biased position. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Whilst I would suggest it would be akin to having Cameron's view of Brown in Cameron;'s own article ... such as "Cameron criticised Gordon Brown (when Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer) for being "an analogue politician in a digital age" and referred to him as "the roadblock to reform".[139]" which happens, in fact, to be in Cameron's article. Perhaos the analogy is hard to see? Collect (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, although I don't really support the position that as it occurs in one article it can occur here, but I see your point that the road block comment is in the cameron article, although it has become quite a well known oft repeated comment, Brown was not really saying anything controversial there was he, it wasn't a comment that is an extreme position about a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) Since the real complaint appears to be the charge of a crime by unnamed people, removal of any such claim should be a valid cure for any BLP concerns. Collect (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. We should not be linking to what amounts to libel. Find somewhere else where Plimer has expressed himself on this topic, without the libel part. This is poorly sourced, and it contains claims about 3rd party.(see issue 2 under using the "subject as a self-published source" (in BLP) - and while this at times is interpreted liberally, these comments are over and beyond) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Nolibel is cited. As for "self-published" -- the precedent in RS/N is that such sources by editorial columnists can be used for stating the opinion of the columnist. No third party is stated to have committed a crime in the quote, hence no "libel" is there. Besides, why try to hide this person's opinions if you regard him as off-the-wall? Collect (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but BLP is the overruling policy here. We can quote from almost everything that any person has said - except few cases where the source contains BLP violating claims about 3rd party. Just quote him from somewhere else - or is that a problem? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that finding the same comments from him from other than his own source would be acceptable -- but that using what are undeniably his own words from his own source (a published column) is not acceptable? Collect (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
No, that is not what i'm saying. I'm saying that quoting his opinions from self-published sources are quite legitimate except in cases where his opinions (not just the quoted ones) constitute libel (and this without doubt does). Have you read the section of BLP i'm quoting? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Does the quote now in the article constitute "libel"? If I were to take your position literally, it would suggest that no article which has a libel within it (by someone's definition, as no suit has been brought) can not be cited for any purpose. Is that the position? I think it better that a person's opinions be placed in the open then concealed. Collect (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I think your interpretation above would be a fair assessment of the spirit of our BLP policy. We should avoid using sources containing dodgy statements about living persons. They're not reliable, you see. --TS 01:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Where a person's own words are used to show his own opinion, and no part relating to others which could possibly be a "libel" is cited, what is unreliable? Plimer is not reliable about his own opinions? Seems an odd position, to be sure. Collect (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It's principally about editorial and legal quality control. The reason why we insist on third party sources for statements made about third parties is because they have gone through editorial scrutiny and (presumably) legal checking. The content might still be considered libellous, to be sure, but the fact that a third party has previously put it through an editorial and legal process gives us a degree of insulation. If we quote directly from something written by a self-published individual, we don't have that insulation - we are potentially incorporating libellous material directly into an article without filtering it through any third-party review. Note that under WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source, the restrictions listed "do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published". That reflects the editorial control present in autobiographies but lacking in self-published sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a question that might best be sorted out on Wikipedia:biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. My feeling is that if you link to an external piece that contains attacks prejudicial to living people then you're, in effect, endorsing that piece as reliable. Which it isn't. The fact that the attacks aren't actually mentioned in the Wikipedia article doesn't really give us much of a get-out, really. We should always strive to seek the distance that a third party report would provide. But other Wikipedians may differ, so I think it's worth going back and seeing if this situation has been considered before. --TS 07:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
See my explanation above. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Posted. Meanwhile "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves." Which has generally been accepted to indicate that self-published opinions are not citable as fact, but only as opinions. Now if the site is noit "questionable" this limitation does not even reach. In short, are articles on the Pajamas Media site a RS as to the opinions of their authors? [1] givea a bit of dramatis personae for the company, which appears to be a real company operating journalistic endeavors. They pay contributors (cites readily found). What is left is to see how it is used elsewhere on WP. The PM article is linked to in well over fifty WP articles. [2] found PM a RS for a book review (which is opinion, of course). Searching assiduously, I did not find any RS/N discussion where the use of a person's own opinions published on a commercial site were found not to be usable. Collect (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A tad off topic, perhaps, but should be really be devoting 10% of the readable text in an article to a blog post that's not really central to Plimer's notability? Guettarda (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not (I haven't checked you 10% assertion). AGW is considered by many to be one of the greatest threats to the planet that exists today. Commentary regarding the validity of such a view is certainly noteworthy given that Plimer is known for being skeptical of the whole AGW position in the first place. --GoRight (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Per the DYK-check tool, your version has 7461 characters (1179 words) "readable prose size", while the version you rv'd has 6970 characters (1097 words). That's just shy of 10% of the words, a bit less if you go by character count. But again, why does his opinion on the CRU hacking amount to ~10 of his notability? It wasn't covered in major media. It strikes me as a lot less important than his entire professional career. Is what he thinks about this one incident (not climate change as a whole) really one of the big things about Plimer? Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for providing the source of your stats.
"Is what he thinks about this one incident (not climate change as a whole) really one of the big things about Plimer?" - Hmmm. A fair question. If you read his entire editorial he is discussing this incident within the context of climate change as a whole. So yea, I think that his point is meant to be taken as a larger indictment of the system than simply this one incident. For example, he also states "The same crooks control the IPCC and the fraudulent data in IPCC reports. The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world’s GDP to pass through an unelected UN government, and then on to sticky fingers in the developing world." I have only selected the portion of his overall piece that specifically addresses the CRU incident to conserve space. So does such an indictment of the system as reflected by this notable incident deserve 10% coverage in the BLP of someone that is acknowledged widely by his critics as being an AGW skeptic? Again, I don't see why not. --GoRight (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, but Plimer is entitled to his opinion and it is notable in his BLP given the significance of the Climategate scandal. As long as his opinion is cited as such, there is NO WP:BLP restriction on including it. The CRU is NOT immune from criticism. The source is an editorial written by Plimer so there is no doubt that this is his opinion, and it is published by Pajamas Media which is a notable media source. There is no restriction against using opinion pieces as sources for this type of criticism as long as it is properly attributed as the opinion of the author which it has been from the start. --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree and don’t see any BLP issue here as Pilmer’s opinions are properly attributed to him and are on his own BLP. WVBluefield (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusing people of "criminal" behaviour clearly falls under our BLP policy. It cannot be sourced to a blog. Guettarda (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous. The source is not a blog. It is a legitimate media source. --GoRight (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The URL is http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/. How is that not a blog? Guettarda (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the URL http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/author/andrew-c-revkin/ for a blog? --GoRight (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
What are you asking - if NYT's Dot Earth blog is a blog? As far as I know, yes. And what does that have to do with anything? Guettarda (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I refer you to [3]: "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a 'blog' style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more 'traditional' 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully."

Does the NYT Dot Earth blog meet the criteria specified here? --GoRight (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(a)No idea, no pressing need to investigate the question; (b) wouldn't use it as a source for unsupported accusations of criminality, even if I had figured out the answer to that question; (c) wouldn't use it as a source if other editors claimed it was a violation on BLP without first obtaining consensus, and (d) what the heck does this question have to do with anything? We're talking about your claim that a blog post isn't a blog post. If you want to know whether Dot Earth is a reliable source in some particular context, use RS/N or BLP/N. This talk page is for discussing this article. Guettarda (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
"(a)No idea, no pressing need to investigate the question" - And with this it is clear that you have seen the light at the end of the tunnel you find yourself in and have realized that it is an on-coming train. The rest is face saving smokescreen. PM is a news outlet that publishes in a "blog" style and as such it's posts are the equivalent of an editorial in the "traditional media". AND, as such they are reliable sources for the published opinions of their authors. --GoRight (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
And note that our standards are higher than mere libel. Guettarda (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not even close to libelous for us to cite those comments. The actual original comments are not even libel. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hence my comment. It doesn't have to rise to the level of libel to violate BLP. Guettarda (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The comment from Plimer is fine, why do you want to deny it? Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The pertinent question is: Why is this particular citation important? It clearly breaches BLP, so find another quote/citation that doesn't. No one is "deny"ing it - it is there, but it fails our policies - thus it can't go in. This is a biography - not a "Plimer thinks this about X" article where X is a current event. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
No, it does not breach BLP. It is an editorial written by Plimer and published by a third party media source. The quotes are attributed as his opinion. This is all perfectly allowable under BLP and you know it. --GoRight (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The comment is "fine"? I don't see how. Can you explain how it's OK, per BLP, to call people "criminals"? Guettarda (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Just take the criminal bit out, easy. Off2riorob (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
And what about all the (unsubstantiated) accusations of professional misconduct? Guettarda (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no big issue with policy and libel and wikipedia wheels dropping off and this content, it is simply that the climate change supporters don't like it and that the climate change deniers do like it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sorry, but BLP applies to all pages/articles - Plimers comments from an already unreliable source are accusing living persons of criminal conduct - and that is exactly what the BLP and SPS states must not be done. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Its sort of cute to see you invoke BLP when it suits your aims. WVBluefield (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Lies. All lies.
"Plimers comments from an already unreliable source are accusing living persons of criminal conduct" - Who are these people he is maligning? Name them and show me where he maligns any living person. BLP does NOT apply to the CRU.
"and that is exactly what the BLP and SPS states must not be done." - This is NOT a self-published source. BLP does not forbid the use of editorials as long as they are attributed to the author's opinion. Show me the text of these policies that is being violated. --GoRight (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
But it is a blog. That's clear from the URL. Guettarda (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Pajamas Media. Educate yourself. --GoRight (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I did so. It's a blog post. It's labelled as a blog post. It's on a site that makes no claim that it exercises editorial control over its blog posts. Please take your own advice and educate yourself about the situation. And remember that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Guettarda (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Leaving this..In a November 25, 2009 editorial, Plimer stated his views on the CRU emails as follows: "Files from the UK Climatic Research Unit were hacked. They show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination.[4] Off2riorob (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    And it hasn't occured to you that all of these are serious accusations (criminal) about living persons. Sourced from a blog no less. Sorry but that is a BLP violation. (see also the comments on BLP/N --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The CRU is not a living person. Who has he maligned? Name them. --GoRight (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting enough the persons involved are rather well-known (as you well know), Phil Jones is quite obviously one. Sorry - but that they aren't named explicitly doesn't make it less obvious who he is referring to. The emails doesn't involve that many people. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
"Phil Jones is quite obviously one." - OK, so now show me where in Plimer's editorial he mentions Phil Jones. --GoRight (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
For this content...it is not a big deal, imo. Anyway its just another locked up article now. Just like the email hacking article is locked up. Off2riorob (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Or...In a November 25, 2009 editorial, Plimer stated that Files from the UK Climatic Research Unit were hacked and said that he thought that figures had been massaged and data had been manipulated to show that medieval warming didn't occur and that the figures showing the 20th century warming had been exaggerated.[5] Off2riorob (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this trimmed down version acceptable? Off2riorob (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
No, see WP:SELFPUB issue 2. (as well as the earlier discussions here, as well as on BLP/N). The source is not reliable for this. (and it is to all extents self-published, since PM isn't a reliable source on its own) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
"No, see WP:SELFPUB issue 2." - Irrelevant, the source is not published by Plimer.
"and it is to all extents self-published" - This is incorrect as you are well aware. What is the connection between Plimer and Pajamas Media that makes this a self-published editorial? Where's your evidence that Plimer has any control whatsoever over what Pajamas Media publishes? --GoRight (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Please stop being ridiculous. The URL clearly suggests this is a blog. You have claimed it's not a blog post, but have done nothing to support your position with anything other than shouting and personal attacks. Instead of insults, try evidence. Guettarda (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Please stop being ignorant and follow the wikilinks I have been providing all over the place, just like

THIS ONE ---> Pajamas Media <--- (Hint: click on it for a description of the media source.)

Educate yourself. --GoRight (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, repeating yourself doesn't make your fact-free assertions any more true. You're making the mistake of treating Wikipedia articles as if they're reliable sources. Stop being silly. Guettarda (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you deny that Plimer is the author of the piece? --GoRight (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope, never said anything of the sort. Just that it's a blog post, and there's no evidence that the site exerted editorial control over the content. Thus, it's an SPS. Which cannot be used to accuse living people of criminal activity and assorted other misdeeds. Guettarda (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
"there's no evidence that the site exerted editorial control over the content. Thus, it's an SPS." - You continue to misread what SPS means. Pajamas Media is NOT owned or operated by Plimer. Ergo it is NOT a SPS in the sense that is intended by the policy. "Self-published" refers to self-published by the author of the piece ... i.e. in a venue over which they exercise editorial control. Plimer has not such control over Pajamas Media and so, Pajamas Media was free to accept or reject his editorial as they saw fit. It has nothing to do with whether the source is a blog, or not. For example, anything Rupert Murdoch writes and publishes in one of his own media would be a WP:SPS for him regardless of the amount of editorial control the underlying media might, or might not, purport to exert. --GoRight (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please don't link to all these policy pages, it is allowed in some cases to add something from here or there, I am looking for a solution and have removed all of the contentious comments from the content and for what it is worth, why not add it as a solution to this problem? Off2riorob (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
He is the author of the PJM piece and as such material from PJM that Pilmer has authored is allowed in the article. WVBluefield (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, looks bloggy to me. And if the inquiry clears Jones et al of wrongdoing, the "criminal" charge is actionable. Plimer may soon find himself back in court, Pajamas Media too. Wikipedia mustn't touch this without other sources. ► RATEL ◄ 06:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What this really comes down to, ultimately, is the following two questions:
  • Is there any evidence that this material is not self-published?
  • Is there any evidence that Pajamas Media is a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as required by WP:RS#Overview?
Note that, as WP:BLP states, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." The onus is therefore on GoRight et al to provide evidence of compliance. Without that evidence, the material shouldn't be included. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
"Is there any evidence that this material is not self-published?" - Yes, the media outlet that published his editorial is not owned, operated, or controlled by Ian Plimer.
"Is there any evidence that Pajamas Media is a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as required by WP:RS#Overview?" - Sure, lacking any better way to measure this, Pajamas Media has already been vetted by our fellow editors as a WP:RS well over 100 times already: [6] --GoRight (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct application of policy

I've thought this over and I am convinced that one side of this argument is seriously misapplying several policies here. The significance of the editorial which Ian Plimer wrote about the Climate Research Unit is that Plimer regards the disclosed emails as uncovering serious misconduct. The editorial itself does not establish that the CRU scientists have committed serious misconduct; it just establishes that Ian Plimer holds that opinion. The significance is in Plimer's views. The editorial is not a reliable source for the statement "Emails from the Climate Research Unit revealed serious misconduct", but it is a reliable source for reporting Plimer's views about them. Especially given that Plimer does not identify individual CRU scientists it is very difficult to see how reporting his opinions would violate WP:BLP for any of them - logically it could only do so if reporting Plimer's view was taken as endorsing it, which is precisely what Wikipedia does not do.

There is no doubt that Plimer did write the editorial so under WP:SPS an editorial he wrote for Pajamas Media is a reliable source for his own views. The fact that it is possibly actionable is not our concern. In any case Plimer has brought in comparisons to criminality in relation to the CRU emails in other articles: this Daily Express article refers to 'fraud' which is definitely criminal. The key point about the editorial is not whether it violates policy, because it plainly does not. The key point is whether it rises to the level of significance to merit inclusion in the article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if you want to discuss significance, who cares if this geologist thinks the climatologists at East Anglia are criminals? He also thinks creationists are criminals, but except for the fact that he had a showdown with them in court (and lost), we wouldn't give a damn or report it here. ► RATEL ◄ 14:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That's actually a good point. Plimer isn't involved in any way in the CRU case. Why is his view of any significance? -- ChrisO (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned somewhere in the mess above, in the version that includes the comment, almost 10% of the readable text word count is devoted to this one blog post by Plimer. Since Plimer is not involved with the CRU or climate modelling, I can't see how this is more important than Plimer's entire professional career. We don't add sections to bios each time the subject of the bio adds another blog post. Guettarda (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking, too. What is so special about this particular blog post that it has to be highlighted? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The weight for inclusion here is a combination of two primary factors, I think. (1) a significant aspect of Ian Plimer is that he is an AGW skeptic, and (2) if we accept (1) as being valid how can Plimer's views on something as significant as the CRU emails NOT be included. I know that many of you don't feel the CRU emails amount to much, but the media storm over it and the fact that many consider this to actually be the scientific scandal of the century makes it notable for inclusion. --GoRight (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Plimer is notable as an AGW sceptic by virtue of his book, even if he is not qualified to make informed comment on the issue. But this does not mean that his every opinion on issues, even tangential ones like whether the synthetic EAUCRU "scandal" is significant or not, is notable. Plimer shoots off his mouth on all sorts of things on a weekly basis, but we don't note them here. What makes this case particularly egregious is the fact that he is libelling people in advance of an inquiry's findings —in itself a very poor show for a supposedly eminent scientist— and this in a blog-style entry at a weblog portal that does not have editorial oversight over the often-misguided scribblings of the site's featured bloggers. Now please note that you have found no support at BLP/N, so why not pull up your zipper and let this one go? ► RATEL ◄ 07:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
"Plimer shoots off his mouth on all sorts of things on a weekly basis, but we don't note them here." - Agreed. We don't have to list everything the man says. But if he is a notable skeptic as you yourself argue even here, then the shear weight of the topic that is the CRU emails makes this particular opinion notable amongst all of those other things we don't mention.
"Now please note that you have found no support at BLP/N" - (a) There is likely no support at BLP/N simply because of the toxic atmosphere on these pages that most people won't endure and is now being considered for Aribitration, and (b) why should I go there when well respected editors like SB are backing my positions on the policies? --GoRight (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
What makes Plimer's view relevant to this article? Bear in mind that notability and relevance are not inherited from one article to another. You have to demonstrate that his views as a non-involved party are (a) notable in the first place and (b) relevant to this article. Your argument is effectively that his views are relevant simply because he is an AGW sceptic, despite his non-involvement, and because there has been a big controversy about the CRU e-mails. That implies three things: that anything Plimer says about any big controversy should be documented in his biography, regardless of any impact it has (I've not seen his view quoted by any reliable sources); that (if you are to be consistent) anything said on the CRU issue or any other big controversy by any AGW "sceptic" should be documented in their biographies; and that any opinion expressed by AGW "sceptics" is notable simply because they are AGW "sceptics". None of these seem to be sensible positions. You might have an argument for including his statement in the CRU hack article - if it was from a non-self-published source, that is - but I can't see any reasonable case for including it here. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate change scepticism

Climate change denial better describes his position. Scepticism is a position of doubting a certain position given the current knowledge. Plimer doesn't just doubt anthropogenic global warming, he denies it altogether and comes up with his own data and conclusions. — NRen2k5(TALK), 19:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take your propagandistic wordplay elsewhere. "Global Warming Denier" is a term made up by Global Warming Believers to slander anyone who does not agree with their science. 174.54.36.247 (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Monbiot's opinion

I've removed the description of Monbiot's opinion of the outcome of the appearance of both Plimer and Monbiot on a television show. I had altered the statement last month to make clear that this was Monbiot's opinion avowedly based on fan mail he had received. Which is ridiculous. Somebody evidently agreed and tagged it as needing balance. In view of that I'd decided to remove the statement all together. The article will not suffer for the loss. --TS 13:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of fraud

I think it is important to note Plimer's fraudulent reporting of others work. These frauds have continued despite having been repeatedly being brought to his attention. He cannot, therefore, claim that they are 'accidents'. Clearly he has 'guilty mind'. He has repeatedly reported various academics work on climate change, changing what they have said to mean the exact opposite. He has as a result been called a fraud numerous times, by many people, and including in the national and international media. He has not taken action against these people calling him a fraud because he clearly is, and truth is a complete defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.32.163 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Find a reliable source calling him a fraud before inserting it. ► RATEL ◄ 04:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You find a source; they are abundant. Monbiot has demonstrated his fraudulent activities for one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.32.163 (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Fraud" has a particular legal meaning; I'm unaware of any facts that would correctly allow its application to Plimer. However, he has engaged in misrepresentation of facts and plagiarism. See:

Regarding Plimer on creationism:

Regarding Plimer on climate change:

The sentence of the article that references my criticisms of his bad arguments against creationism currently misspells his name as "Pilmer"--I'd fix it, but the article is currently locked.

Lippard (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Pilmer → Plimer: [7] Please use {{editprotected}} in future. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Plimer called a fraud in an opinion piece in respected Australian news source, RS. [8] ► RATEL ◄ 02:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    What's all this talk of fraud? Given that BLP concerns over the use of the word "fraud" and/or "criminal" were the primary rationale for excluding Plimer's comments on climategate it hardly seems appropriate to allow his political enemies to claim the same about him on Wikipedia, no? To quote KDP below:
    "[Plimer] is making serious claims about other people which are also under WP:BLP protection, as the comments amount to libel they are certainly not allowed under BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)"
    Since KDP's argument carries the same weight here but serves to shield Plimer in this case, I would argue that inclusion of this claim is not allowed even IF attributed as the opinion of the one who said it. The Plimer opinion was always attributed to him and it was still deemed a BLP violation and removed. --GoRight (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The Point I was making was that Roger Jones of Climate Scientists Australia, who himself is an IPCC author, described Plimer as an "egotistic charlatan and [a] fraud". This is not a trivial event. ► RATEL ◄ 03:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting trivia but still a BLP violation using the same argument that was used against the inclusion of Plimer's opinion on the CRU emails. --GoRight (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, what's the WP:WEIGHT of this comment? I mean in terms of media coverage? Seems pretty low. Let's see if other media outlets pick up on it. Remember, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NODEADLINE. Besides, this might just be a media blip. --GoRight (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing some stuff

I had done this but as usual WMC reverted it back in, the following is what i propose to remove "These views prompted Phillip Adams of The Australian to describe him as a "denialist poster-boy".[15]" This is an opinion piece and as such has no place in a BLP due to wp:rs and wp:blp Removing this "NASA's Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist, examined the Plimer hypothesis and said it was based on a "basic logical fallacy".[17]" This links to an opinion piece which supposedly quotes schimdt, without an actual link to a wp:rs in which schimdt says this in an interview then it is just hearsay and as such is not reliable. --mark nutley (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I support Mark very strongly for the Adams quote removal. The Adams quote is a personal attack from someone with no expert skills and repeating attacks by journalists is just not something we should do. The other one is more marginal, because it is from someone with some expertise and about the content of his beliefs not about him. As I have indicated before at Fred Singer I think we do the project a dis-service by including barely notable negative opinion from third parties about climate skeptics, especially when they are not of any real consequence to the article content. --BozMo talk 15:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Bozmo with regards to the adams piece. But why do you think the piece about schimdt is marginal though? It is linked to an opinon piece which attributes a quote to schimdt, is that really considered reliable? Should there not also be a link to the actual interview in which schimdt is supposed to have said it? --mark nutley (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, you can have Adams and I'll re-add Schmidt William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well adams is already gone, seems like i was not the only one who thought that bit was wrong. I would like your reasons though for the continued inclusion of a quote attributed to schimdt in a comment piece with noting to back that quote up. It just does not seem like a reliable enough source for that comment. mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Adams is gone because you removed him. But you did so with no consensus. It curious how these issues of "compromise" come up, no? Whenever these things appear on the septic side, you or ATren are the first to complain that I should "compromise" and allow just half the junk in. Now... oh dear, suddenly compromise is impermissible; you must have all your text removed and nothing els will do. As to why: it is valid notable criticism by an expert William M. Connolley (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Also for me the Schimdt piece is specifically about the hypothesis not about the person, which makes it much less BLP issue. Don't get me wrong I would prefer the Schimdt piece out but I can see arguments either way and I am sticking to really clear stuff (of which there is plenty around) and avoiding marginal arguments. --BozMo talk 18:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree that the Adams quote is unnecessary. Schmidt is, however, a useful source, as he's both a well-known and published climate scientist (therefore qualified to comment) and he addresses the hypothesis rather than the person (therefore less of a BLP issue). -- ChrisO (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
"Adams is gone because you removed him." No, check the article history please. I am not and have never asked for any junk to be allowed into any article, I am not asking for compromise i am asking if the current source is reliable. Now i am not saying schimdt is not a useful source nor am i saying he is not qualified to comment on such things. However the comment in question is a quote being attributed to him That is not the same as a quote taken directly from an article is it? What i mean is, is there a source in which he is actually saying what is being quoted? At the moment it is just being attributed to him but anyone could have said it. mark nutley (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of [9] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Indy/GS quote? His volcano claim is an assertion that can be tested beyond doubt by the application of empirical data. And, of course, Plimer is wrong. Very wrong. In fact, humans emit 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes. Nasa's Gavin Schmidt, a world-leading climate scientist, dissected the Plimer hypothesis in excruciating detail and found it to be based, among other things, on a "basic logical fallacy". seems clear enough to me. It is a quote, it is attributed to GS William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

[10] thats cool we all make mistakes. Now onto the discussion at hand. What i`m asking is were is the link to the dissection of pilmers hypothesis and the resulting quote from schimdt? Should that not be the actual source and not the current one? --mark nutley (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Adams removal. I'm on the fence about Schmidt, I can accept either way. But moving down further, the entire Monbiot section should go. Previously, I've supported inclusion of this section, but after recent experience with weight on other BLPs in this topic area (specifically, the Pachauri BLP and the COI claim), I think it falls far short of the weight standard. It is Monbiot alone talking about this bet and it's received no other RS coverage. I plan to remove it, but I am raising it here first since this has been a topic of contention in the past. If there are no objections I will make this change tomorrow. ATren 21:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This bit you mean? "After the debate, Monbiot wrote in The Guardian that throughout the discussion Plimer had used evasion and distraction when faced with straight questions.[27]" Well it is an obvious opinion piece but did pilmer issue his own statement to counter monbiot`s? If so it would be better to add that i think. --mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This has been an ongoing issue here -- the Monbiot quote was softened somewhat, but it's still Monbiot on Monbiot, and thus inherently imbalanced. I think this bit is also overweighted for this article -- belongs on Monbiot page, if anywhere. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I am referring to the entire Monbiot section. It is sourced properly but it is trivial and it fails weight. ATren (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The Plimer-Monbiot debate saga was covered in several RSes (Guardian, Spectator, Australian ABC, The Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, Crikey.com.au, etc). It won't be removed. ► RATEL ◄ 03:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I am raising this again, because I believe the standard for inclusion is inconsistent across articles, and that is a POV issue (IMO). I am specifically referring to a COI claim against Rajendra K. Pachauri. Like the Monbiot debate here, the COI claim was similarly covered in several media outlets, but consensus there seems to be against inclusion based on weight and NOTNEWS. The Monbiot-Plimer debate, I believe, is of similar weight as the Pachauri accusation, perhaps even less so, and if the Pachauri claim is kept out based on weight, I think this one should be out too. It is fleeting and inconsequential. ATren (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the need for cross article consistency, and I also agree that the weight of the COI charges at Pachouri is greater than the weight of this one on one debate thing. So if the COI charges are not suitable I would say neither is this stuff about the debate. --GoRight (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears consensus is against inclusion of the Monbiot trivia here. Out. Collect (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misrepresenting the state of opinion. The Monbiot bit could be trimmed, but it's highly relevant in terms of it being a challenge to Plimer's claims. Removing it would harm the balance of the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it's trivial and non-notable. The entire section should be removed, as the Pachauri COI accusation has been removed. ATren (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Another thing which struck me here are the following statements "While COP15 attracted 33,200 delegates, the rival sceptic conference was attended by 60 people (15 journalists, 18 speakers, 27 audience).[28]" Now thats not entirely accurate is it. In fact the 60 at the sceptic meeting would also have been counted along with the 33,200 number :) And there is no way 33,200 people were ever in the actual meetings at cop15, those numbers also count activists in stalls all over the place. (like the ones monckton had words with when they broke the law by breaching his right to free speach)
The other thing is very wrong i believe "According to Lenore Taylor of The Australian, the attendees had an average age "well over 60"" Not only is this ageist it is entirely unnecessary and insulting, what does the age of those at this meeting have to do with anything?--mark nutley (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Am I reading this discussion correctly? Regarding the Monbiot section, I am seeing 5 in favor of removing it (ATren, Marknutley, Tillman, GoRight, Collect) to 2 in favor of keeping it (Ratel, ChrisO). Have I missed anyone? --GoRight (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC supports keeping too, I'm sure. 5:3, no consensus at all. I suggest you formulate a RfC on the various issues that seem to stick in your craw and let it run for a month or two. As I read the page, the statements are all well sourced, non-trivial, and highly germane to the man and his cockeyed hypotheses (yes, that's my opinion, and I'm allowed to have one). ► RATEL ◄ 04:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, 6:3 would be a consensus so let's see what happens. --GoRight (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the prevalence of the Plimer-Monbiot coverage vs. coverage of Plimer in general? Weight is always different between individuals, since no two persons have the same amount of news-coverage, or the same balance of coverage. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
5 of us believe, apparently, that it is too low to warrant inclusion. --GoRight (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
That was strangely enough not an answer to my question. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Kim, I'm not exactly sure what you're suggesting here. From my perspective, it's pretty straightforward: the debate was not a major event, it was short lived, and there was not significant independent coverage. In the Pachauri BLP, a far more publicized claim was kept out on the same grounds. I fail to see how other coverage on Plimer would affect the decision on this particular claims -- if you're concerned about relative weight, then feel free to suggest other claims be removed, but it's no justification for keeping this. ATren (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Please read my question again. I'll repeat it: What is the relative prevalence of coverage of this debate relative to the coverage of Plimer in general? Please try to answer without mixing up different topics. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, i checked myself. It seems that this was the major story in the media coverage Plimers for rather a long time (roughly 6 months). It was covered in all major Australian Newspapers, in TV (ABC) as well as in at least 2 major british newspapers (they were the parties in the challenge). So WP:WEIGHT is definitively for inclusion. It is notbreaking news, and the text is short, and seems to be written from a neutral point of view, the evasion point may be stretched abit, but is attributed as Monbiots opinion and its obvious that Plimer wouldn't agree. So that seems fair. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Kim, please list the sources here. The article is currently sourced to Monbiot alone. It is up to you to justify inclusion, and I've seen no justification here. Others agree. ATren (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that you haven't attempted to gauge weight yourself? Its rather easy - check against "theaustralian.com.au", "smh.com.au", "theage.com.au", "abc.com.au", .... Or do a search on "+Monbiot +Plimer" and discard all blogs. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not just post the links here Kim? I'm not the one arguing for inclusion here. ATren (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are the one arguing for the removal of reliably sourced material. Do your homework, it is enlightening. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it is up to you to provide grounds for inclusion. And I also note your inclusion standard has once again shifted. In any case, I will remove again tomorrow, there is no consensus for inclusion. ATren (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
My "inclusion standard" is exactly the same as it has always been, the trouble is that you still haven't figured out that different issues have different spread of coverage (ie. weight). The section is well-sourced, there doesn't seem to be a weight issue, and it is not breaking news. So what is your reason for removal? Since there is no consensus for removal either. (sorry - you can't turn this around like that), default is status quo when there is no consensus. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
As I've said repeatedly here, it is currently sourced 100% to Monbiot, it is a trivial claim, and I've not seen significant outside coverage. Yes, there is a weight issue. If Pachauri's criticism is suppressed per weight, this surely doesn't meet the standard, and several others agree with me. You keep claiming that it was widely reported, yet refuse to provide links to those sources. If you don't provide them, then my weight argument stands, and I will remove again. Really, is this all worth it? Why not simply list the sources you found? In the time it took for all this back and forth, you could have easily just listed them here for evaluation. ATren (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The section is already referenced. And it is not only sourced to Monbiot, as far as i can see, there is also the ABC lateline (as well as Quadrant). Considering that Plimer gets very little coverage in the media in general, this is a rather big issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
No Kim, the ABC ref is the debate itself, not coverage of the debate. Quadrant is a blog entry and doesn't even belong here! Everything else is Monbiot. You still refuse to provide the refs you repeatedly claim are out there. And, arguing that this belongs because "Plimer gets very little coverage" is flat wrong - if that's the case and there are other weight-dubious claims, then those should be removed too. Arguing that such a minor event needs to be covered simply because Plimer doesn't have other coverage is completely wrong. In fact, I think the opposite is more likely to be true: it can be argued that Plimer's relative lack of notability is more of a reason not to include a poorly-sourced negative section. Again, if there are other claims in this article that fail weight, remove them, but don't use it as justification for keeping this. ATren (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually the Lateline ref is both - it references the failed attempt at a debate (describes it), and at the same time is a debate. The Quadrant entry is afaikt not a blog, it may be opinion (difficult to tell, since i don't know Quadrants regular coverage). And i gave a third ref from the Australian.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
No, Kim, the Lateline ref is the debate. I don't know how you can argue otherwise. Quadrant is an online opinion blog for a partisan magazine. So we have the Australian, which mentioned the debate in one paragraph, two days after the event. Isn't that what you call NOTNEWS? I'm sorry, if that's all there is, then it still falls far below the weight standard you've set elsewhere. It would require multiple references in reliable sources over a significant period of time. If you can't provide that, then it should be removed. ATren (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
We have The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald[11] (for Monbiots side) and The Spectator and Quadrant (magazine) (for Plimers side), a failed to be established debate with multiple backs and forths in these major newspapers...Which was finally realized with the interception of ABC's Lateline, all of which span a period of several months. Plimer is a person who is not regularly in the news, so it is quite a noteworthy event. [how often do you think that Plimer gets air-space in Australian national TV for this much time?] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The Guardian and SMH are both opinions by Monbiot! Quadrant is unreliable (or borderline reliable), and you didn't provide a link for The Spectator. So, nothing's changed. And once again, if Plimer is not in the news often, then trim non-weighty claims from the rest of the article;do not use it as a justification to keep something that is clearly not notable.
So, to recap, other than Monbiot's own columns, we have an opinion on the blog section of Quadrant, a questionably reliable magazine, something in Spectator (but we don't know what, because you don't provide it), and a brief one-paragraph mention in an Australian newspaper as part of a larger piece. Against this you have reverted to keep out claims against Pachauri that have appeared as full news items in respected newspapers on 3 continents. And you continue to say there is no inconsistency there? ATren (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry ATren, could you jump off your Pachauri horse? The issues are different. Monbiots columns and opinion articles , as well as several other opinion articles (amongst these Plimers Spectator Op-Eds) are notable, and they are all reliable sources. I do not know what you have against the Quadrant. And the major thing: A whole program on Australian national TV dedicated to this debate... How many programs of this kind have Plimer had? How many times do you think that Plimer has captured this much column-inches? These are the weight issues (relative weight in comparison with total coverage) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] I`ve been looking through the links in this article, is it me or does there seem to be an excessive amount leading to Monbiot? Monbiot is not what you would call a neutral party is he :) For instance The opening paragraph in this article is out and out lies, I quote from the quadrant "The eleven questions Monbiot submitted to Plimer were actually 29 questions sprinkled with juicy little flourishes such as question 4(b) “ Was this a mistake or did you deliberately confuse two data sets?” Or question 8 (b) “Was this a mistake or was it a deliberate misrepresentation?" Also Monbiot claims pilmer "used a series of excuses and evasions to put me off" another untruth, Pilmer actually asked Monbiot some questions in reply to the ones he was asked, Monbiot did not answer them. I would have to say given Monbiots obvious hatred of Pilmer he should not be used as a reliable source at all. --mark nutley (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I count seven to three -- counting TS as being in favor of trimming Monbiot's own paean to himself. And I think quoting a person as saying he, himself, did well in a debate <g> or that his opponendt did not do well is nigh meaningless. Collect (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be more support for removal of the section, but no clear consensus. In a similar situation on the Pachauri article (no clear consensus either way), the text was removed pending further developments. I think the same should be done here, therefore I'm removing the section. If there are further developments on this story, it can be re-evaluated. Since there seems to be more support for exclusion here, I suggest that those arguing for inclusion seek more input before reverting my removal. ATren (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the ageist remarks from the article, i assume that is ok? This is the part i have removed "According to Lenore Taylor of The Australian, the attendees had an average age "well over 60"" mark nutley (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It does seem rather unnecessary, so I agree with this removal. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you chris :)With regards to the monbiot i think some of it should stay, pilmer threw down the gauntlet and the ensuing arguments between the two dragged on for months. It could however be tidied up i think, for instants "After the debate, Monbiot wrote in The Guardian that throughout the discussion Plimer had used evasion and distraction when faced with straight questions.[28]" Without a counter from Pilmer this is very unbalanced and is based solely on Monbiots perception, and of course regardless of the outcome Monbiot would have said much the same thing :) So unless we have Pilmers counter to this claim i think it should be dropped. So if a consensus is not reached for the removal of it all as some want perhaps we could tidy it up like i have suggested here? --mark nutley (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
@Atren: I think that you have fallen into the framing trap that this debate is about the removal of the section, it is not. The debate is always about whether to include something, not whether it should be removed. The distinction is important and it is grounded in the spirit if not the letter of WP:BURDEN. A lack of consensus to include the section means that it should be removed by default. --GoRight (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Except GoRight, that the section has been there for a long time... So it is a question of removal, not one of including. Or in other words: The status quo of the situation, is that the section is there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope. There is no grandfathered in exception in the policy. The question is ALWAYS whether something should be included. Since WP:CCC we need to re-assess whether there is a consensus to include. I don't see one here. --GoRight (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving back -- suppose John Doe challenged Richard Roe to a debate. Ought we have

"John Doe challenged Richard Roe to a debate. After the debate, John Doe wrote in the Newspaper that Richard Roe had used evasion and distraction when faced with straight questions."

Or is the fact that one debater says he won and the other guy "evaded issues" (and therefore lost) a tad laughable ab initio? Collect (talk)

Would depend several things: on the notability of both John Doe and Richard Roe, who challenge who, as well as the avenues for the challenge to a debate, and the coverage of said debate (as well as the challenges), (in correspondence with) the normal coverage for each of the debaters. All of which would be different in various cases. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
In other words, it would depend on your opinion of how to make those decisions, others' views be damned? We have at least 5 editors here agreeing with non-inclusion, perhaps 3 in support of inclusion, yet you reverted based on your interpretation of weight, which happens to differ significantly from your opinion on Pachauri's, a difference which you've justified with shaky arguments. And when you run out of arguments, you accuse us of pushing the issue because we're "skeptics" (I'm not). This is wikilawyering at best, tendentious at worst. Now please, Kim, work with us to bring these articles in line. They are obviously out of balance (I'm also referring to 2 other skeptic BLPs where these same debates are occurring). ATren (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
No ATren, it wouldn't depend on my opinion. And i would ask you again to try to separate issues. Lindzen!=Plimer, Plimer!=Pachauri, Pachauri!=Lindzen, each have different levels of notability and each have a different spread of coverage in reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
And as I have said multiple times, your opinion that Pachauri's apparent elevated status makes the bar higher for inclusion of critical material is unsupportable, and multiple others agree with me. If you have concerns about Plimer's or Lindzen's notability, then that's a separate issue, but to somehow claim that their lack of notability means we can accept claims that would not come close to meeting the weight standard of higher profile people, that is not a correct interpretation of weight, not at all. If you have concerns about Plimer and Lindzen weighting, then you should be removing other non-weighty material from their articles, not adding further non-weighty material to balance it. ATren (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but weight is based on the balance of WP:RS material available on a given subject.. Plimer has comparatively little material compared to Lindzen and significantly less than Pachauri. Thus balances are different - as they will be on any given subject. It has nothing to do with "elevated status" or any other bias that you seem to perceive, and everything to do with relative balance of material available. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Meaningless Break

Round and round we go ... this discussion is going no where. KDP is resolute in their opinion as are the 5 arrayed against him. What is the next productive step to be taken? There is no demonstrable consensus to continue to include the Monbiot section. It should be removed until a consensus for inclusion can be demonstrated. --GoRight (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And round it goes again: There is no consensus for its removal, and since it has been there for a long time - its the status quo. Whats next? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you have some place grounded in policy that states "status quo" trumps "lack of consensus for inclusion"? Lack of consensus for inclusion is pretty well grounded, I think. --GoRight (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Er, pardon Goright, you and a few other editors think that this incident is not notable enough for inclusion, even though it has been demonstrated to have enjoyed wide coverage in major news organs. So on the face of it, you have no case, only an urge to exclude based on personal preferences (similar to wp:IDONTLIKEIT.) That's where we stand on that one. It's worth noting that Plimer has had more column inches printed because of this debate than for almost anything else he's done. ► RATEL ◄ 01:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
If you say so. The fact remains that there are 5 editors who favor removal for whatever their reasons are, and their reasons don't really matter in terms of demonstrating a consensus to include. There is clearly no consensus to include here based on the editors actively engaging in the discussion. I understand that you have a lot invested in this article and I can empathize with your situation here, but the facts are what they are and facts are stubborn things. --GoRight (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok according to scjessy James Dellingpole is not a reliable source and i quote Being in the Telegraph does not automatically give it magic reliable source juice. It was an opinion piece in the opinion section of the Telegraph, written by a climate change skeptic. As a reliable source, it has little more than "blog" value By this logic the same applies to Monbiot and as such all article sections which use him as a source should be removed. --mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
5 does not a consensus make, what is the count for retaining status quo? (someone said 3 - but i get it to somewhat more) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I have effectively been summoned here by User:Marknutley, and I can see immediately that my comments have been misused to make a point over here. My feelings about the quality of the Guardian source can be summed up in the response I gave to Mark's comments at the CRU hacking incident talk page:
"I am not familiar with the Ian Pilmer Ian Plimer article, so I cannot comment on it specifically. My general feeling is that blogs or opinion pieces (wherever they are published) are only reliable for quoting what the author is saying, but they are not reliable for the accuracy of what is being said. When using such sources, the statements made must always be attributed ("Delingpole said black was white", "Monbiot said white was black") rather than taken at face value ("black is white", "white is black"). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)"
I hope that makes it clear where I stand with respect to sources. It would seem in this instance that proper attribution is indeed being given, so I personally believe the section is acceptable. I am not watchlisting this page, so come and get me if you need anything else. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing is not the issue, it's WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS. This is a trivial item, covered only by Monbiot himself. It happened a month ago but there has been no RS coverage except for a brief mention in a newspaper 2 days after the event. GW skeptic BLPs need to be brought up to the same standard that proponent BLPS are held to. ATren (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Plimer/Archive_4&oldid=342427773"