Talk:Ken Ring (writer)

Notability

I'm obviously missing something - what else do i need to provide to demonstrate notability? VIQleSthe2nd (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject."

[news items about ken ring - including non NZ media]

VIQleSthe2nd (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Granted, but note the next paragraph in WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

Also, refer to WP:ANYBIO. WP:ENT may likewise be relevant. Otherwise, I'm puzzled why a bad-tempered astrologer who can't astrologise (that's how he's depicted in the article) should be in an encyclopaedia. LordVetinari (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of the references aren't suitable (e.g. discussion website). The subject is perhaps notable under points 2 and 3 of WP:BIO#Entertainers. Tayste (edits) 02:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

References to the author's publications, including ISBN etc., might assist too. Tayste (edits) 02:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

He's very notable in NZ at the moment - primarily due to the recent events surrounding the earthquake and his claimed predictions. ISBN of his latest book is 9781869793029, not quite sure how you'd normally work that into the article. Other books: (see article) VIQleSthe2nd (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added more independent sources... VIQleSthe2nd (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Also - a lot of people are actually taking his predictions quite seriously - that's one of the things that needs to be expanded in the article - I was hoping some other wikipedians might add to and improve it. VIQleSthe2nd (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Ken Ring (astrologer) → Ken Ring (author) — Ken Ring is more notable as an author of many books, some of which have a significant following. Tayste (edits) 03:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Though technically a published author, Ring's primary source of income is fishing. Labeling him an astrologer is a pragmatic recognition of his notorious and completely fallible weather and earthquake predictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.128.128 (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest Ken Ring (Moon Man). He even refers to himself as such I think.

VIQleSthe2nd (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Ken Ring (astrologer) is more accurate, because he's much better known as an astrologer than an author and his books stem from his main "profession" as astrologer. Ken Ring (Moon Man) isn't very encyclopedic, since it's a self-given title. It also carries a certain prejudicial quality and bears overtones of "lunacy". Since many people level this charge against Ken, it's probably inappropriate.MotleyPhule (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, so I've removed my move request. I agree with the current title. Tayste (edits) 01:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Content disputed by Kanola51 (Ken Ring)

The following has been disputed so I though I would put it here to try and start some discussion. Most of it relates to a 2008 interview published in the Herald[1] and the presentation of criticisms. I added most of it, but other editors have since reverted or contributed so we should reach consensus first before instituting any major changes (except for the possible BLP violation mentioned below). AIRcorn (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The lunar cycle occurs every 9 years, while the solar cycle repeats at 11 year intervals and by assessing the two Ring claims weather recycles though a 355-day cycle, a 19-year cycle, and a 36-year cycle."

The article should include an explanation about how he predicts the weather. If there is a better one explaining Rings methods we can change it. The 9 year and 11 year cycle come from his website[2]. AIRcorn (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• "...and if you are not near an airport it could possibly be way out."

I don't think this adds much beyond the 60 mile radius and could be removed AIRcorn (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• "..., and Channel 9's Breakfast Today. In 2008, he employed two forecasting assistants, a web designer, sales executive (former TV One weatherman Brendan Horan), marketing manager and a business consultant. He says he has provided forecasts for specific events including the Melbourne Cup, Ellerslie Flower Show and the Auckland Santa Parade. Ring speaks at various business and media events and has produced a long range forecast report for the Gisborne City Council through to 2020. His main clientele however consist of farmers and there has been interest in Japan, Britain and the United States for his almanacs."

Sourced to the above herald article and another 2007 herald article [3]. A bit out of date and they could have reported it wrong, but in the absence of better or more recent reliable sources it should probably stay. AIRcorn (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Author of the New Zealand Weather Book...." through to British historian Nicholas Campion has replied saying there is no evidence to suggest any of the four were lunar forecasters and it is not religion but science telling him he is wrong."

Ring uses a controversial method and has attracted criticism for it and that should be presented here. It needs to be presented carefully however and that may not be the case at the moment. The New Zealand Geographic article and the Auckland Astronomical Society critiques should stay as they are published beyond the internet. The limestonehills, sciblogs and silly beliefs criticisms seem to fall under WP:BLPSPS and needs good justification to be included (have removed it for now see here for previous version). It would be good to mention Jim Renwick's comparison, but it needs a better source than limestonehills. Same goes for the NZ geographic article (I have put a request in at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request).‎ Not sure abut the NZ herald criticisms [4], they could probably be presented better, but it is a reliable source. AIRcorn (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel that in the absence of scientific journal articles debunking someone's methods, a well-researched website article should count. I've read the BLP above and it seems to disagree with me. Just in casse my vote counts however - I vote keep at least the sillybeliefs website VIQleSthe2nd (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think BLP trumps most things here. If there was an article titled Predicting weather by the moon it could be used with proper attribution. However, if a reliable newspaper or other source mentions the website we can probably include that mention. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also seen other psuedoscience articles with a seperate "criticism" section. I feel that there's enough of that in this case to justify having a heading. I'll defer to the experts to decide. VIQleSthe2nd (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any policy as such against a criticism section, but it is discouraged. There appear to be seperate criticism for the weather and earthquake predictions and I feel it would be better to keep them under the appropriate headings. Also a separate section on criticism will probably attract more vandals (for and against). AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Ring claims that a former client and member of the 2007 All Blacks management approached him for forecasts on days when the team was playing, reportedly to aid in team selections. The Guardian newspaper reported that coach Graham Henry had hire Ring, but this was not confirmed by the New Zealand Rugby Union."

Sourced[5], but possibly trivial, although the guardian reporting it makes me think it is worth a brief mention. AIRcorn (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ring denies global warming, stating that it is a "politically-motivated power grab by politicians and the far left" and "full of bad science". During the launch of his 2008 almanac he claimed that "we have a responsibility to create global warming" as "life likes warmth".

Sourced to articles at his website[6][7][8] and a Taranaki Daily News article[9]. Looking at his website he appears pretty adament in his denials of Global Warming. Maybe better quotes could be used, but it needs more than simply "Ring denies global warming" AIRcorn (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• "He also claimed in March 2011 to have predicted the devastating 6.3 magnitude aftershock in February."

It should be written like the September Earthquake prediction, actually sourcing his prediction before the Earthquake happened, not after. AIRcorn (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• "although it was within the range expected with the current aftershock patterns."

That is what the source says and it is in an article about Rings predictions. Should probably be attributed [10] to Paul Gorman Science Reporter for The Press. AIRcorn (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Section on "predict"

The section on "predict" could have been written by his PR. Maybe it was. It fails WP:NPOV and is drawn almost entirely from primary srouces, so I removed it pending something that might perhaps not fail policy quite so abysmally. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the primary sources are in the first paragraph, which is used to explain his methods. As far as I know this is allowed in policy WP:SELFPUB. Did you even read any further? It talks about how his methods are controversial and not supported by science. I would add more, but this is a BLP and there has not been much published criticisms beyond self-published sources. Point out the parts in the section that you feel violate NPOV. I will remove passion. AIRcorn (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Forecaster or predictor

Throughout the article there is a lack of differentiation between a "forcaster" (one who uses data to make a forecast, with well-understood uncertainties), and a psychic who "predicts" things based on thoroughly discredited pre-scientific nonsense. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He is called a forecaster by the media, but saying weather/earthquake predictor is fine by me. However I disagree with you about the Primary Sources tag. His website references are used in context and many are backed up by secondary sources. I have had another trim of them anyway. Currently we have his website saying "that his predictions are not supported by mainstream science", "that he sells weather forecasts for any day years in advance", "that it is not an exact science and is opinion-based", three for his global warming denial, his methods and his 20th of March earthquake prediction (that didn't happen). Which of these are you unhappy with? They do represent 17% of the cites so I will be happy to remove more. Also I would be interested in some sources for the "thoroughly discredited" that don't violate WP:Synth as most scientists don't seem to bother with him and the best I could come up with was a New Zealand Geographic article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is essentially no difference between forecasting and predicting. They are both foretelling events. Whether the methodology is scientific or pseudo-scientific, and whether or not the forecasts come true, predicting and forecasting are essentially the same. Using "predictor" as a main descriptor just sounds odd. "Forecaster" is more normal English. Nurg (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

From Merriam Webster:

• Forecast - to calculate or predict (some future event or condition) usually as a result of study and analysis of available pertinent data; especially  : to predict (weather conditions) on the basis of correlated meteorological observations [11]
• Predicting - to declare or indicate in advance on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason[12].

From this a forecast is a prediction, but not all predictions are forecasts. As Ring's use of meterology is called into question then it would probably be better to not call him a forecaster. His website is called predict weather and as saying predictions does not necessarily deny the use of science that is probably the better term. It would be appropriate to say that Ring terms himself a long-range forcaster somewhere though. AIRcorn (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

First person edits by the subject himself

We've just had extensive changes made to the article by User:Kanola51 with the following very first person Edit summary:

"I have corrected what was incorrect about myself. I am not an astrologer - have never done a horoscope for anyone in my life. That I use the lunar cycles is astronomical science."

This proves what I have suspected for some time. Kanola51 IS Ken Ring. I don't believe he has really been trying to hide this information. It just wasn't obvious before. Now, if I was the subject of an article here, I would want it to be accurate too, and we should welcome details of someone's life "from the horse's mouth", as it were, but I know Wikipedia has some guidelines on this. Just not sure what and where. Conflict of interest springs to mind for starters.

Where do we go with this? HiLo48 (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no need to hide information. But I do feel a need to prevent the tendency of critics who do not understand lunar science from using Wikipedia to peddle their prejudices and pet dislikes of me, just because they disagree. Wikipedia should be noncritical and factual, and steer clear of opinionated vitriol. It is inescapable that Random House sell 10,000 almanacs per year which put the book in the bestsellers list. Therefore there obviously are many who do find the work useful, but who would not bother coming onto Wikipedia to say so. Yes, I was talked about up and down the country, but this was because it sold newspapers. Other media scaremongering, just as fear-based, such as 21 May "Rapture" is not held up to be something evil. Many academics resent that I have no university qualifications. But there is no chair for what I do in any university. Actually I have studied 3 years of sciences at the Universities of Otago and Auckland as part of a BA, and regard everything I do as within the rigor of the scientific method. -Ken Ring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanola51 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's good that you can comment here. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing a little research, because I just knew that Wikipedia would have a policy on this, and it's here. Your work so far seems fine to me. There might be some contentious areas. In those case, it may be best to discuss them here on the Talk page first. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

While there is nothing stopping someone editing there own article it still has to be verifiable, be presented neutrally and contain no original research. AIRcorn (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Ken Ring (astrologer) to attract some editors who are experienced in dealing with this. AIRcorn (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

Ring disputes that he is an astrologer and it was uncited so I removed it. However he does talk about astrology, so if there is a reliable source that describes his relationship with astrology, feel free to add it with a ref. Nurg (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This matter really needs resolution. If he's not an astrologer, the article title is wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

He may not see himself as an astrologer, but someone predicting earthquakes and weather based on lunar cycles is clearly using astrological methods regardless.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily arguing with you, but is there a reliable source for that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me check into it; it's my sense that using lunar data to predict events on earth is an aspect of astrology, but I'm really not into astrology.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the WP definition of astrology (first para as of Jun 19 2011):--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Astrology is a system of divination founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies are signs of or—more controversially among astrologers—causes of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events.[1][2] The primary astrological bodies are the sun, moon, and planets; although astrology is commonly characterized as "reading the stars", the stars actually play a minor role. The main focus is on the placement of the seven planets relative to each other and to the signs of the zodiac, though the system does allow reference to fixed stars, asteroids, comets, and various mathematical points of interest as well. As a craft, astrology is a combination of basic astronomy, numerology, and mysticism. In its modern form, it is a classic example of pseudoscience.-- from Wikipedia article on Astrology

So, if the moon is being used by Mr. Ring to predict earthquakes (ie natural events), one could argue that Mr. Ring is an astrologer, but I think it's fair to add to the article somewhere that Mr. Ring disputes that he's an astrologer; fair enough?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Earlier it was suggested that the article be retitled to Ken Ring (author). That is probably the most neutral title. If sources are found saying he is an astrologer it does not change the fact that he is an author. AIRcorn (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Or Ken Ring (writer). What is the more common qualifier on WP? Nurg (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. Author sounds more encyclopaedic to me, but I guess writer would cover his newspaper work better. AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I prefer "writer" for the occupation and "author" in relation to particular works. I had a quick look at other article titles - both words were used but "writer" seemed more common. Nurg (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll go along with writer or author or whatever is decided; my two cents would be "long range weather forecaster" which is what somebody writing on my talk page (Ken Ring?) described himself as, but it's a bit long. I think the more neutral-sounding, the better.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling him by his self-titled description would be just as bad as using someone elses in my opinion. I personally prefer author but could live with writer. AIRcorn (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a moot point and neither option is controversial, but astrologer is, so I have gone ahead and changed to "writer". Nurg (talk)

Correspondence with Ken Ring from user talk page

(this was put on my talk page, but it's relevant here, so I'm copying it here)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who you are and am having difficulty finding where to argue my case. I am not an astrologer and have never done a horoscope for anyone in my life. I am a longrange weather forecaster. If it is good enough for the media in 3 countries to call me that then it should be good enough for Wikipedia. I do astronomical cycles and apply them to weather. If I am an astrologer then so is someone who writes tide tables. Trying to hook me to astrology is an attempt to denigrate my work. There is a campaign by the New Zealand Skeptics to ruin my business if they can. They have called for the government to investigate me, for the Commerce Commission to curtail me etc simply because they do not understand what my science is about. Wikipedia is not the place for them to debate the worth of my work. Wikipedia should just report facts, and in my edits that is what I keep reducing the content to. Let the New Zealand Skeptics have their own Wikipedia page if they want some sort of public profile. Neither is Wikipedia the place to post comments and opinions of meteorologists etc who do not understand lunar science. I do have a public profile and a substantive following. My almanacs sell 10,000 per year in NZ alone. I am Australia's biggest TV channel network's longrange consultant. NZ Skeptics may not like it, may disagree with my ideas, but this is not the Taleban or Stalinist Russia. Why should the public have to wade through a plethora of negative comments to find out what I do? I have done nothing wrong. On the contrary in the field of earthquakes I have helped thousands of people for no renumeration and intend to continue doing so. Ken Ring (Kanola51) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanola51 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am an unpaid Wikipedia volunteer, a handyman, living in New Jersey, merely following Wikipedia's rules which suggest that, for starters, a person should not edit their own article, that reliable sources be used which are verifiable, that articles be neutral. I found out about you on the WP noticeboard about conflict of interest. If you are, indeed, Ken Ring, then you should not be editing your own article because it's clearly a conflict of interest, and you should not be removing criticism of your deeds by public officials in New Zealand. About you being an astrologer -- if you are making predictions about events on earth, based on events happening to the moon, then my sense is that's astrology -- but there may be a case to make that you don't see yourself as an astrologer, so maybe that should be put into the article? The article in my view is highly biased in your favor -- borderline advertising for you (again, against WP's policies) -- and is not neutral; my additions were a mere way to try to restore some of the balance. Wikipedia is an excellent encyclopedia when people follow the rules, since it leads to objective reporting, factual information. In the end, readers themselves will make up their minds about you; if you are telling the truth, and believe in what you are doing, and if you are as popular as you say and sell 10,000 almanacs, and believe in the veracity of your earthquake predictions, then you shouldn't fret what an article in Wikipedia says, with contributions from a handyman from New Jersey, of all places. Last, this discussion belongs on the talk page of the Ken Ring page so I will copy it there.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I resent being labelled a "quasi-mystic mathematician". I am a math teacher who specialises in math motivation. There is nothing quasi about me or mystical. That is a mischievous derogation. There are 6 other derogatory remarks designed to make me look a fraud. These are from David Winter, a student, 3News who say they have not found a single scientist, geologist or seismologist which believes in Ken Rings theories, but that is because they haven't asked enough of them and I had sent them 6 links to scientific studies which they chose to ignore/not read. In fact a phD student in geology from Otago University has been researching my work for his thesis and has been "under my wing". Further, it is not surprising that scientists don't concur - it is not in their training. There are not 6 balanced supportive quotes, which makes for unfairness. In any court of law or debate to portray one view requires opportunity for it to be offset by an opposite. I find it upsetting that Wikipedia can be used as a platform for the views of skeptics, when the article is supposed to inform of my work for those who wish to read of it. Let skeptics provide their own viewpopints on their own pages. I am not an astrologer and resent the label and implication. I am a scientist using astronomy for cycles and seismicity for location. I am no more an astrologer than someone who puts together tide tables. In fact the process is exactly the same, as I am applying tide cycles to archived weather data, and tidetable authors apply tide cycles to archived water data. My profession is longrange forecaster. I am known for that in 3 countries - I am not known for astrological work/reports. I have nothing against astrology but I am nowhere near it in style, content or method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.222.183 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this to me. I understand how you might resent being labeled a "quasi-mystic mathematician" but please understand that I didn't label you this, rather, a reliable source which is verifiable described you with these words. Please take up the issue with them, not me; rather, I am merely following Wikipedia's rules which say that I must quote the sources, that's all; now, if I said that, it wouldn't hold water here at Wikipedia. It's how it works. Please understand the process. About your not being an astrologer -- well, my sense is that if someone predicts natural events by looking at astronomical or astrological events (eg the moon), then that's astrology; but frankly I'm not an expert here, so maybe there is a case for having your article retitled. Last, and this may be the hardest thing for you to appreciate, but it's true, and I think if you think about it, you'll agree -- and it's this -- that when you are criticized in the media that this is a good thing in one sense because it means that people out there in the world are listening to you and heeding what you say. It's a sincere compliment. And what I'm trying to suggest is that when politicians such as New Zealand's minister Nick Smith criticize you, that you're on the public radar. That is, when your article in Wikipedia has both positives and negatives, that's it's a more serious, better article overall, reflecting a boost in your status, than one which has mere bland pronouncements. Won't you agree here? And, I believe that you believe in your own predictions (right?) -- that is, I believe that you believe that you are not a fraud -- so why worry? You should smile and enjoy these days. Being human, as you know, is a finite thing, and we should strive to enjoy every moment on the earth because these days will not last forever! Cheers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following from the article on the basis that AFP was incorrect. Ring is not a mathematician. He has been a maths teacher but that does not make him a mathematician.

Removed sentence & ref: An AFP report referred to Ring as a "quasi-mystic mathematician". ref name=AFP20110302>{{cite news |title=Scientists slam 'Moonman' earthquake predictor |url= http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jBJj4uSyj9a5mWp_4kAFF0L-0KAQ?docId=CNG.3c4dcf9b911963e30a1f3a73453a499f.01 |newspaper=AFP |date=2 March 2011 Nurg (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

March 20th Prediction

Concerning this bit from the lede; "He also said there would probably be an earthquake in Marlborough or north Canterbury "just before noon" on 20 March 2011.[5] This caused some residents to leave Christchurch and led to criticism from scientists and sceptics.[6] A 5.1 magnitude aftershock occurred at 9:47 pm (NZDT) on 20 March but scientists say there was no link with Ring's prediction, and it was within the range expected with the aftershock patterns.[7]" It seems a bit misleading, or given undue weight, to present this in this way, as we were 1. still having aftershocks very regularly (we had literally thousands of the them, over 11,000 in fact, -and we're still getting them even now). It would've been more difficult to predict a day when there definitely was not going to an aftershock at that time. 2. despite quoting the '5.1' there's no other information about depth or acceleration, and actually being here -it was a minor aftershock, not even enough to wake our earthquake skittish cat sleeping on the back of the chair and we were right around the corner from the epicentre of it. And notably 3. The prediction doesn't even match; It was not just after noon (his prediction was actually 9.44am anyway), and Christchurch is not in Marlborough or north Canterbury. Which is not mentioned here. And he was very specific on the area -"lunar equinox, moon crosses equator, east/west faultline event. The only east/west fault lines in NZ are in Marlborough and N Canterbury.". The prediction also stated it could be 'one for the history books', which it really wasn't.121.74.247.109 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ken Ring (writer). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for //www.astronomy.org.nz/aas/Journal/Oct2004/PseudoWeather.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for //www.astronomy.org.nz/aas/Journal/Nov2004/PseudoWeather.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for //www.astronomy.org.nz/aas/Journal/Apr2005/PseudoWeather.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Environmental skepticism

"He has published articles on climate skepticism on many occasions"

So what? See WP:OPINIONCAT: "Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions." Also, "climate skepticism" is a euphemism for climate change denial, and "environmental skepticism" is more of the same. Bjørn Lomborg has coined the term, so he is the only person who should be in the category.

Read the ongoing discussion in Category talk:Climate change denial to find out more. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@User:Bastun: Any thoughts on that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think if someone is publishing climate change denial/climate skeptic arguments on their professional platforms on a reasonably regular basis, then it's not just a personal opinion any more, it's a public and professional one, and is worthy of inclusion in appropriate categories as a result. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

But then the appropriate category should be Category:Climate change denial - about which there is an ongoing discussion in Category talk:Climate change denial.

Environmental skepticism is a euphemistic term invented by another denier, Bjørn Lomborg. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)