Talk:RealClimate/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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) 15:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Editorial suggestions to lede

I was jarred by the opening sentence, in particular, the word "by" : RealClimate is a commentary site (blog) on climatology by a group of climate scientists.

I look at how WP described other blogs:

• The Volokh Conspiracy The Volokh Conspiracy is a weblog which mostly covers.... Authors mentioned in subsequent sentence.
• Daily Kos Daily Kos (pronounced /?ko?s/) is an American political blog, publishing news and opinion... Author mentioned in subsequent paragraph.
• Pharyngula (blog) Pharyngula is a blog on ScienceBlogs run by PZ Myers
• NASA Watch NASA Watch is a website which provides... Author mentioned in subsequent sentence.

In three of the four cases, the opening sentence is a description of content, with contributors noted in a subsequent sentence or paragraph, though notably, one site uses a similar construction.

At a minimum, I'd like to see a verb - "run by", "written by" or "authored by".

Preferably, we could follow the construction of the other three, identifying the contributors in a separate sentence. One simple way would be to put a period after "climatology" and follow it with sentence such as: The site's contributors are a group of climate scientists whose goal is to provide a quick response to developing stories and providing the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary.

I'd like some feedback before making any change.

In addition the last sentence of the lede threw me for a second:

The web hosting for RealClimate is provided by Environmental Media Services, a non-profit public relations firm, though RealClimate states they exercise no control over the content.

It doesn't take long to realize that "they" in the closing phrase means EMS, not RC, but it is awkward wording.

Here's an alternative: Environmental Media Services, a non-profit public relations firm, provides web hosting for RealClimate although (according to RealClimate) they exercise no control over the content.

I think this is better, but still could be improved. Thoughts? --SPhilbrickT 18:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes. I think the second sentence is still far from ideal, but open to alternatives re either edit.--SPhilbrickT 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Article expansion

I've just completed and nominated DeSmogBlog for Good Article. I was going to start on Watts Up With That next, but several other editors are hard at work on that article in response to a request of mine some time ago. So, I'm going to try to expand this article to Good Article status for now. I've compiled some refs here, and judging by some of the threads I see above, there appear to be more refs out there with information. Let's get to work! Cla68 (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I understand that RealClimate was heavily involved in the CRU emails controversy. I just ordered the book, Climategate: The Crutape Letters (Volume 1), which appears to be the most neutral of several books that have been written on the subject so far. Depending on what the book says, I think it has potential to be a good source for expanding this article. Cla68 (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is your understanding coming from? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

...and is this really "the most neutral of several books"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The reviews of the book said that the two authors are warmists who support the IPCC's stance on AGW. Cla68 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What's a "warmist"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. The publisher info says that it's by print on demand self-publisher CreateSpace. So much for WP:RS. And, of course, I used to be an evolutionist, too! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

We'll see. If the RS Noticeboard rejects the book, we could always go with Climategate: A Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam, Air Con: Climategate Edition, or The Hockey Stick Illusion. Cla68 (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This para [1] has become badly convoluted. The only info not "according to RC" has no source at all. I think it would be better to just prefix the whole para by "according to RC" unless there are other sources. Errm, and in that case, perhaps the prefix should be omitted: If we don't trust them for this info, we shouldn't be reporting it William M. Connolley (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to your suggestion. Cla68 (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, according to this, EMS and SCN are the same organization. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox problems

There are problems with the infobox. Who, for example, says the current list are the sites creators? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried to list the contributors who were originally listed at the site's date of creation. If you happen to know who should actually be on that list, whether more, less, or different names, please say so. We'll need to eventually find a source for the information, but I don't think the information is controversial so I think it's ok to leave unsourced for now. Cla68 (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't taht OR? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Because I assume there's a source somewhere to back it up? If not, then it'll have to be left off. Cla68 (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"I assume there's a source" isn't usually considered adequate justification. I must say, for someone with so many FAs your knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is astonishingly poor. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks SBHB. I think a more helpful response would be to make a suggestion about what to do about the content in question. If you look through the threads above, you'll see that feelings about this particular topic have run a little high at times. That means that we need to make a special effort to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise as we expand this article. There appears to me to be enough information out there, based on what I've observed so far, that this article stands a good chance of qualifying for FA, at least in terms of coverage, once completed. Cla68 (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Noting someone's lack of familiarity with policy is a "personal attack," but referring to editors as a "cabal" isn't. Thank you for pointing that out; I was not aware. A more constructive response would have been to familiarize yourself with the relevant policies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you SBHB. Now, do you have a suggestion about what to do about WMC's question, if you don't agree with my response? Cla68 (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems rather obvious: don't assume a source, find a source. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I made it clear above that a source will need to be found or the information must be removed, sooner or later. I appreciate your input on the issue. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This states that the site was founded by nine scientists, so we just need their names, if different than the ones currently listed. Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

POV

This article has no crits in it whatsoever, incredibly biased and one sided, Lets see some balance here please 14:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)mark nutley (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a breath. Explain. Why do you think it's "incredibly one-sided", given that it consists nearly completely of simple factual information? Which side does it favor? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, this article is in its initial stages of development. Please give us a chance to work on it for awhile and see how it goes. Remember, we don't care if this topic is criticized or praised, we just report what the sources are saying about it, whatever that may be. Cla68 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There are no crits in the article, it may be factual but to have no crits of the site is very biased indeed. Are our readers to be led to believe that this site has never been criticised? Cla this article has been around for a while, and i know there are crits of this site, i am wondering why they have never made it into this article? mark nutley (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Heres a good one from Roger Pielke judging by the nasty and vituperative comments coming from Real Climate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 April 2010

And another good one, "The main blog used by the Consensus, realclimate.org, exemplifies this problem, because it was set up by a PR company and is run by an employee of Nasa, who ties himself in knots trying to show that he does the blog in his spare time. It is also characterised by a tone of weary condescension and censoring of dissent that you do not find on most sceptic sites" mark nutley (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The first is self-published, failing WP:SELFPUB

The second includes misrepresentations and inaccuracies. If it is considered a reliable source, it would need to be presented in the context of its bias and inaccuracy. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The first is written by a scientist so selfpub is not a problem. The second is reliable, your assumption of bias and inaccuracy is wp:or I`m afraid. mark nutley (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Having thought about this and seeing that Cla is involved in writing this article up to scratch i am going to remove the POV tag. Hopefully the crits i have posted here can be used. mark nutley (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think removing the dispute tag is best. Clarifying my perspective on the links provided above:

The first fails WP:SELFPUB #1, #2, and #3.

I stand by my comments on the second source and am happy explain further if there's any need to do so.

Finally, the two both contain details that could violate WP:BLP, depending upon the presentation, and appear to be little more than soapboxing, so are unfit for Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a blog, how does blp fit in? And i have seen exxonsecrets used as refs in wikipedia so don`t talk to me about soapboxing, those refs are fine for this article. if no crits are added i can always put the pov tag back i suppose mark nutley (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added the Spectator quote to my list of potential refs. I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to discuss it and the other sources further in due time. For right now, I propose starting to build the article by adding basic and hopefully uncontroversial information on the site's stated mission and goals. Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That isn't an RS. Obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is The Spectator not a reliable source? Especially as this is only a comment about a Blog? mark nutley (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it is an opinion article? Because its not wrtten by an expert? Because there isn't a difference between what defines a reliable source in a general article and in one about a blog? etc etc etc - pick your choice. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is a "Blog Expert" then? Any notable person commenting on a blog is reliable, it does not matter if it is an op ed, so long as the source is attributed mark nutley (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Spectator piece is a reliable source for the opinion of the journalist who wrote it. You guys all know that. As this article expands, it will likely include opinions from a wide variety of columnists and other opinionators, just like the DeSmogBlog article does. Cla68 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Its a RS for a piece of information that we're not interested in William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well you of course would not be, our readers however may find it of interest mark nutley (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, don't personalize discussions or respond to anything that might be perceived as baiting. WMC, could you explain why you personally aren't interested in the information and why you used a nosism in your statement? If you have a valid reason for not including that opinion, we should discuss it here. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"We" is short for wiki; I wasn't expressing a personal opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe you were speaking for the wiki? I'm not trolling, I seriously want to read your answer. Cla68 (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

From the guidelines and policies mentioned in this discussion, I'd say he's speaking for Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely an uncritical article, but it is a rock of Gibraltar compared to some of the unbelievable trash that passes for many blogging articles on Wikipedia. I'm late to this discussion. Is anyone currently claiming that a particular needed critical article is unfairly removed? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Staff?

Cla added some weird stuff about "staff". RC doesn't have any staff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, changed to contributors mark nutley (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixes the surface issue. The other probs with pretending that Mountford are reliable will have to be addressed too. I think that it is regrettable that Cla (and you) are stirring up trouble like this William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Does the article currently contain any false information? Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see how there could be problems with bringing up the Hockey stick controversy without explaining the full context, so I removed that sentence until this article gets expanded, which is still on my list to do. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevance

The statement "The site's domain was hosted by Environmental Media Services who later changed their name to Science Communications Network" is clearly relevant. It shows the original focus was environmental issues, and was later changed (for reasons the reader can conclude for themselves") to claim "Science" as their raison d'etre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs)

This is so obviously your biases showing through that I'm amazed that you can write it. You are deliberately inserting your POV into this article, which is a disgrace. A glance at the website, particularly the early articles, will make it clear how wrong you are William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

William, I thank you to not false allege "blind revert". The material is relevant, and you have a personal association with the article subject. Do not revert this material again without discussion. Also, telling editors to "have a glance at the website" is not a valid justification. The fact is accurate, relevent, and sourced. What's your problem? Fell Gleaming^talk 11:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I was puzzled by the inclusion of Environmental Media Services when I first saw it. A brief history of this webhost is not noteworthy or necessary. FellGleaming, please keep your unfounded misgivings to yourself. This is not MySpace. Wikispan (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fred Pearce notes that EMS/SCN is an environmental political lobbying organization. So, it's information the reader could use. I second that WMC should not be editing this article since he was one of the founders of this blog. Talk page ok. Cla68 (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Where? – it's not on page XVIII of Pearce's book. . . dave souza, talk 18:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You can take it to COI *again* if you really must, but you know its already been there, so perhaps just dropping the insinuations would be better William M. Connolley (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I will leave a note on your talk page about what I did about it. Cla68 (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So, just to be clear: can you confirm that you *didn't* bother look up the previous discussion? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

EMS/SCN is indeed an environmental lobbying organization. And it's not just the hosting company. It's the company that provides free hosting services to RealClimate, and several other related sites. It also was founded by a past director of the radical advocacy group Environmental Defense Fund. EMS also organized put out the initial press releases for RealClimate. Far from being trivia, this close -knit relationship was significant enough to be covered by Science Magazine: [2] and a disclaimer on RealClimate itself in response: [3]. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

One assumes that you (and Cla68) would find similar connections regarding contrarian groups, websites, individuals and their funders to be worth mentioning, yes? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Look at any such article on those groups. You'll find the articles filled with those connections. I'm glad you agree it's relevant. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

SBHB, I don't appreciate you personalizing this content discussion like that, and I've responded to your remark on your talk page. Please discuss the content issue here, not the editors. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, in fact my attention was drawn to this article by the COI allegation you made concerning WMC, which is also personalizing this content discussion. Unfortunately, the discussion that belonged on this talk page was instead exported to the PD page, and has now been hatted by an arbitrator. It may be useful to move or copy the discussion to this talk page, as it was quite informative. I'm not sure who to ask about that. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Noting an editor's potential COI is appropriate. Personalizing the debate by implying hypocrisy among other editors is not. Thanks. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The way this content dispute leaped immediately to an enforcement page was not good. I was just wondering how to get it back where it belongs, which is here. Some good points were made in the PD discussion, now hatted. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

NOT "noticed by the editorial board" of Science

The first line under "Recognition" is not correct. The Science reference is to the "NetWatch" news feature by the reporter Mitch Leslie; there is no indication or implication that the editorial board of Science has "noticed" the story or any of the sites mentioned in it. The reference to Nature seems to be of the same sort. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So as the first sentence is a misstatement, it can and should be deleted. Any objections? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the Science portion, but I am pretty sure the Editorial Page at Nature really is an expression of the opinions of the editorial board at Nature. Dragons flight (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Having checked the way an editorial page and a news page look in the current issue, this clearly appears to be a Nature editorial, as it says on the page, so have made that clear in the first sentence. At the same time I've accepted that the Science report is in their news section as stated above, and have shown that accordingly. Don't have access to Science, so would welcome any corrections to that. . . dave souza, talk 20:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The bit in Nature does look like an editorial endorsement, and notable. The bit in Science (see text) seems hardly notable, but not a problem. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dellingpole on Steig (etc)

RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of 'peer review' , Guardian Telegraph February 8th, 2011

This might be useable in a "Criticism of RealClimate" section. Thoughts? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read more carefully, the self-discredited James Delingpole is blogging in the Daily Telegraph, not the Grauniad. His claims to know more about peer review than Sir Paul Nurse simply show Delingpole's unassailable ignorance from a self proclaimed non-expert position ("it is not my job" to read peer reviewed papers on the subject). Not a reliable source for anything but his own gossip. . . dave souza, talk 08:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

D. is talking about "pal review", which many other commentators have remarked about, in climate science and other small, rather ingrown fields. It's a real problem.

Cute cartoon, too... But, on 2nd reading, I'm not sure we can really use any of this. Too bad, since RC draws criticism regularly, some merited imo. Just not in RS's, that I've seen anyway.

Then again, the masthead says D. "is right about everything." Plus, "He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books".... Must be a RS, eh? <G> Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• For those interested, here's Andrew Revkin's take on this affair at the NY Times.

Anyway, the place for this stuff is at Antarctica cooling controversy, which I hadn't seen until now. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Add explanation of Climate scientist

Possible wikilinks Climate scientist and Climatology ... 99.181.137.224 (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Specific language"?

I don't understand the argument for this edit. The new text is not "more specific" (since "blog" implies "website"), but it removes significant amounts of descriptive about the nature of the blog. Why? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)