User talk:Freddie1973

Global warming

is a difficult topic which resulted in much controversy both in media and on wikipedia. It does fall under WP:REDFLAG. One "peer reviewed" article in a minor journal won't do for a major claim in this field. Please understand that this topic has a long history on wikipedia, and the tolerance to poorly sourced claims in this area is very low.

Another issue is Journal of Cosmology is not considered as a reliable source on wikipedia, and the magic phrase "peer-reviewed" is no help here. Please avoid using this source on wikipedia. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are you saying that this is not a reliable source? The source is Qing-Bin Lu, Ph.D. from the Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA. Why is he considered unreliable? His paper has been peer reviewed which is reliable source on Wikipedia. And his paper is based on many other peer reviewed papers. This is important research.

I tried to find appropriate places to mention this, mostly where CFCs are mentioned. Why is this not good enough? --Freddie1973 (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PhD and university position never guarantee reliability. "Peer-reviewed" does not mean reliable in this case because there is no trust in the Journal of Cosmology. Apart from its controversies, it is not included in such qualifiers as Web of Science and Scopus. Materialscientist (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't make sense. Peer review is done by other experts, not the journal. The journal contacts the experts who then do the review. If the experts say it is no good then the journal doesn't publish the paper. This is how all peer review is done. In this case the reviewers said it was OK. You have no reason to say this is not good science. --Freddie1973 (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note

You can keep a civilized discussion or engage in edit warring and get blocked very soon. This is your choice. Materialscientist (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is edit warring? --Freddie1973 (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In short, repeated reversion of edits which do not constitute blatant vandalism or spam. Disagreements happen, and it is important to reach consensus before reinstating your point; brute force never brings a solution on wikipedia. See WP:WAR. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK so how do we do this? How am I expected to get agreement to include this important information? Surely there is some way to include this information. --Freddie1973 (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have to follow the core wikipedia policy that information must be verifiable through reliable sources. If no reliable sources are available (yet) then it might suit better to another encyclopedia. Materialscientist (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have provided a link to a peer reviewed source. This is like other information on these articles. How do I get consensus to include this information? --Freddie1973 (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A standard procedure is to post the proposal at the talk page of the targeted article and wait for reaction. In case the article is not visited often or/and the targeted articles are many, the proposal can be posted at the corresponding wikipedia project(s), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment or/and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry in this case. That said, in this particular case, I would search for more reliable references. The one you were adding will not do no matter the posting. Please understand that "peer reviewed" is not a magic key. Materialscientist (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

global cooling campers

Unfortunately, the community camped on the global cooling page has made a determination that the only thing on topic for that page would be the 1970s global cooling scare. If you go back you will find that they're quite explicit on that. It's a ridiculous position but until it becomes a publicly embarrassing one it's likely to stick. I've given up on the page in disgust. TMLutas (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there perhaps a different page that could be constructed via disambiguation to allow other global cooling topics to be discussed? Global Cooling (Science) and then theirs would be Global Cooling (1970's Social Phenomenon). I have seen pages like this elsewhere. Do you know if this would be possible? --Freddie1973 (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you the best of luck in doing so. I suggest that a successful conclusion to the initiative would require somewhere between 20-30 people with significant Wikipedia experience committed to not letting the campers wear down the page into non-existence. You'd need to be prepared for multiple "speedy delete" attempts right off the bat and constant combative attempts to turn the page into a sociology page or an examination of fringe characters or anything else other than what you would expect a global cooling (science) page to be. Good luck. Be Bold. Let me know when the page goes up. TMLutas (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]