DeSmog has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
While searching for sources for this article, Academic OneFile listed an article by the Southern Rockies Nature Blogwhich reviewed and gave its opinion on DeSmogBlog. I did not include this information in the article, because the source is a blog. Does everyone agree with this, or should the blog's opinion be included in this article? The blog in question is sourced 14 times in Academic OneFile, but I otherwise couldn't find any other secondary sources which discusses this blog. Cla68 ( talk) 00:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I made some changes. This isn't the JH page, it is the DSB page. Etc. William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. There doesn't seem to be any clear reason for including this, and the heap of pointless redlinks don't help William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The page currently displays a citation error. The following reference needs to be either (a) actually used, (b) removed if it is never going to be used, or (c) moved to the unused comment if it will be:
I would fix it myself but am barred from doing so. -- GoRight ( talk) 23:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I just added a criticism section after noticing from the Watts Up With That article that such sections apparently should be included in these types of articles. I noticed that someone feels that criticism sections should be posted high in these types of articles. Does the same editor or any others think that the same thing should apply here? Cla68 ( talk) 10:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that attention needs to be drawn to DeSmogBlog's partisan and restrictive comments moderation regime, with access normally granted only to commenters supporting the site's alarmist pro-AGW views. Constructive debate and the refutation of any inaccuracies in blog posts are routinely frustrated. The site has a low volume of comments, and has developed no "blog culture", unlike many other blogs addressing the climate controversy. I'm not going to barge in with a page-edit yet; just seeing how it flies here first.-- Thon Brocket ( talk) 12:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you have refs? Jprw ( talk) 14:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll put some stuff together, but just to give for a flavour, here are the current top seven posts at DSB and WUWT, with dates and current number of comments:
DSB WUWT
17/3 - 0 18/3 - 20 15/3 - 0 18/3 - 21 15/3 - 0 17/3 - 119 15/3 - 0 17/3 - 149 13/3 - 0 17/3 - 52 12/3 - 0 17/3 - 88 11/3 - 1 17/3 - 109 |
...which bespeaks two very different cultures.-- Thon Brocket ( talk) 19:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
If I'm doing something dumb here, like looking in the wrong place for the DSB comments, somebody please flag me up. I hadn't realised just how bad it was until I did the count. WUWT is outperforming DSB 1000 to 1 here. WUWT's live, rough-and-tumble, productive comments culture, against a Lenin's Corpse at DSB. Surely they must receive more than ONE comment in a week? Weird. Evidently DSB have a big problem with undermanning and over-moderation which they're not telling us about; or they have a de-facto policy of not allowing comments, which they're likewise being coy about. The comments pages and links are window-dressing.
Stalinist. Strange. {Sniff} Smells like ... PR.-- Thon Brocket ( talk) 00:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to compare WUWT with a similar blog that features scientists rather than the proles Watts attracts, try Deltoid. But why are these comparisons being made anyway? ► RATEL ◄ 02:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
"Comments policy Although its format apparently allows comments, DeSmogBlog does not welcome them. In recent months (May 2010) most posts remain uncommented, and on the rare occasions that comments are posted, the comments are invariably authored by pro-AGW commenters. Adverse comment in response to blog posts is effectively prohibited, and no discussion of blog posts takes place on the site. The reasons for this state of affairs are unclear."
Nutley: I posted the above and you reverted it, citing "good faith" and verifiability. All of it is verifiable simply by looking at recent blog posts on DSB. Which leaves "good faith". Care to expound your reasoning? Is there a problem with pointing out DSB's Potemkin comments policy, and if so what is it? Thon Brocket ( talk) 20:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I added a sentence, using the Littlemore Sun article as the source, naming four of the organizations that this blog has "outed." Before adding them, I checked the blog itself and confirmed that what was reported in the Sun was accurate. There are at least four posts in the blog "outing" those four organizations. Should the reference also include links to the blog articles which "outed" those organizations, or is the Littlemore cite sufficient? Cla68 ( talk) 04:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I've pulled about as much information as can be pulled from the available sources for this article. I think all that's left now is to start stubs on some of the redlinks. I had asked WMC to do that and as far as I know he didn't say no. I guess I need to go ask him for an update on how that's going. Any further input on the article, such as to my question above, is, of course, always welcome. Cla68 ( talk) 07:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Cla there are a heap of Monbiot refs in The Guardian -- see my latest edit. Jprw ( talk) 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I just found some more references to ths blog on the National Post [1] [2] site. Cla68 ( talk) 01:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Cla in a very short period you've got the article looking very good -- far superior to WUWT. It would be interesting to see if the latter could also be brought up to scratch. Jprw ( talk) 08:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK we do not use this word when reporting what someone said. The blog said that these people had few publications and ties to ff industry. We do not say that the blog said that they allegedly had few publications and allegedly had ties. This is superfluous. We are reporting an allegation as it is, no need to double qualify it as such. ► RATEL ◄ 03:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for the clarification. Jprw ( talk) 13:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
A search in Infotrac produced several organizations that could be the "Urban Development Institute" that Hoggan apparently belongs to, including the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies, The Earth Institute, and several other organizations with similar names (Urban Development Research Institute, Urban Development Institue of Australia, Urban Land Institute, Urban Institute, and Institute for Urban Development) which don't currently have Wikipedia articles. Since I can't tell which of these organizations the "Urban Development Institute" is referring to, I'm going to remove the redlink and leave it until more information becomes available. If I find a spare moment, I may just email Hoggan and ask him. Cla68 ( talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the wikipedia definition of blog, DeSmogBlog does not fit. Its own name may be a misnomer. It's also a registered non-profit, so that's another non-blog sign. I can probably think of more. ► RATEL ◄ 11:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Fine by me. ► RATEL ◄ 02:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The article currently contains:
Cited to: Corcoran, Terence, " Terence Corcoran: Weaver’s Web II", National Post, December 9, 2009.
This misrepresents what they source actually states. Specifically it states:
This needs to be corrected but I am currently barred from editing the article. Would someone please make the necessary adjustments to reflect that the source actually used the word speculated? This distinction is not trivial. Thanks.
Also, in reading this particular source it is quite clear that the source believes that these supposed links to fossil fuel funding are ludicrous and this nuance is lost in the current text. For example, the source points out that there have also been similar break-ins in the Psychology department and so questions why the fossil fuel industry would be funding such break-ins. Perhaps this should be corrected so that the article actually reflects the tone and substance of the source. Thoughts? -- GoRight ( talk) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the point of adding the Alexa ranking to the lead. After all, we shouldn't include unexplained jargon in articles at all. There's no way for a reader to determine what that number means - does a high Alexa ranking mean that a site is popular, or than it's not popular? And what, in a general sense, does 75,000 mean? Even the Alexa Internet and Alexa Toolbar articles don't appear to answer these questions. Guettarda ( talk) 15:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Having read up a bit more on both Alexia and Quantcast i do not see how they can be a reliable indicator of a sites hits. With alexia there are two ways to do the stats. Alexia toolbar, you can get 100k hits, but if those people do not have alexia toolbar installed none are counted. The second way is to embed some code from alexia into your index.php, as we have no way of knowing if a site has this code in their index file then this is also worthless, the same problem occurs with quantcast, you need to embed their code in your index file, again as we do not know if a site has this code the result are worthless. The only way to know if quantcast code was in was if actual stats were sshown, not guesstimates. I would not support the use of alexia for a sites stats, and quantcast only if actual stats were returned on a search, and not just estimates mark nutley ( talk) 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I too can't see the point in including the traffic. Or, indeed, the quote by LS William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Going back to the question of Alexa rankings, these are essentially the Internet equivalent of straw polls, as they are drawn from people utilizing Alexa toolbars, and their accuracy is probably not precise enough for inclusion. DeSmogBlog has ways of including a counter showing its precise site traffic in the blog, if it so desired, and there are other and better measures of site traffic used by larger blogs, such as Nielsen. ScottyBerg ( talk) 17:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Alexa rankings are widely used. Metrics reported by sites themselves are, like newspaper circulation numbers, utterly inadmissible unless they have been independently audited. Some people may just not not like the site's ranking, but the fact is both relevant and topical. Fell Gleaming( talk) 19:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with Alexa either, other than some ramblings that appear to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fell Gleaming( talk) 19:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Make that 6-3 for removing the content. Alexa is useless for less trafficked sites, as everyone knows. ► RATEL ◄ 01:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
When you are talking about figures that are unreliable...
But you are non-specific as to the nature of the "figures" to which you refer. Alexa's self-acknowledged "unreliability" relates to a "ranking" of website traffic beyond the 100,000 level, not the underlying data upon which that website traffic assessment is based.
...since it is quite possible, albeit unlikely, (with the methodology that Alexa uses) to be the most visited website in the world - and have Alexa measure 0 visitors.
Interesting. To rebut my "analysis", you pose an undemonstrated hypothetical as justification for disregarding Alexa data. And my "analysis" is flawed? Lordy.
If their sample of the visitor pool isn't statistically significant compared to the total visitor pool - then nothing can be determined.
On the contrary. Alexa purports to make determinations that a website's low traffic doesn't afford them a capability to provide a reliable "ranking" when that website's traffic data places it above the 100,000 level. That "low traffic" characterization is arguably relevant and apropos to an article on a website entity. Whether Alexa is WP:RS in that regard is the subject of the RS/N.
I'll defer any further comment here pending the results of the RS/N. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 21:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the traffic content should stay. ATren ( talk) 03:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 23:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This is a fairly tight little article so I'll forgo the section by section review and give an overall look.
I've reread the article and feel that it is better. There is still a one-sentence paragraph in the "Mission and audience" sub-section. Other than that it's a pretty short but concise article that I think is better for the review process. I'll pass it to GA, keep up the good work. H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 16:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned by a pattern I notice in which a couple of pro-sceptic editors are responsible for peppering climate related articles ( Ian Plimer, Climate change denial and this one — those are just some of the ones I'm monitoring) with references to Monbiot. Some may conclude that it could be part of an effort to paint the anti-sceptic and anti-denialist side as consisting of one left-wing journalist on a crusade. I'm going to be scrutinizing every reference to Monbiot and seeing if it needs inclusion, or can be replaced by something better. ► RATEL ◄ 14:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that there has been a flurry of reverting over this section, lamentably without discussion. I believe that the section is too long and is problematic from a content standpoint. Blogs are not proper sources, especially on living people, and I don't see that changing by quoting from blogs by columnists and articles in reliably sourced publications. While the article linked may be of some value, I question its use to flesh out this article on a blog. ScottyBerg ( talk) 12:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
"Mission and Audience" may be WP:V problematical. Per WP:SELFPUB (list emphasis mine)...
I'm not clear that the following complies with either the letter or spirit of WP:SELFPUB...
Comments? JakeInJoisey ( talk) 13:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I have tagged this section as lacking reliable third-party sourcing, particularly for the content referenced by footnote 6. While I'm doubtful that this content can be properly supported as written given the WP:RS considerations and the source author's "affiliation with the subject", comments are solicited. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 01:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Phil England writes in The Ecologist that the strength of the book is the rigour of the research and the detailed focus on key incidents. He points out, however, that the climate change chapter is a only 50 pages long, and recommends several other books for readers who want to get a broader picture of this aspect: Jim Hoggan’s Climate Cover-Up, George Monbiot’s Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning and Ross Gelbspan’s The Heat is On and Boiling Point. England also points out that there is little coverage about the millions of dollars Exxon Mobil has put into funding a plethora of groups actively involved in promoting climate change denial and doubt. [11]
99.181.141.119 ( talk) 02:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The whole 'deniergate' section and the changes to the lead made in the same edit fail NPOV. 'Deniergate' is not a neutral & commonly-accepted term. There are plenty of problems with phrasing: 'confirmed suspicions', 'achieved worldwide recognition and acclaim', 'many revelations', 'outspoken critic' are all loaded or emotive terms, or carry implications which should (if true) be made explicit and sourced. Not sourced from DeSmogBlog itself, either.
This info should go into the article, but neither the 'deniergate' version or a previous editor's 'fakegate' version come close to encyclopedic, neutral language. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
−
Many thanks for addressing these concerns Squiddy, and I ask for your forbearance with any clumsiness in my editing, I have to confess to being a relative wikipedia newbie. However, I have to take issue with your assertion that "Deniergate" is "not a neutral & commonly-accepted term". It is a highly fitting and deserved riposte to "climategate" of which the HI was and remains an enthusiastic promoter. Surely, what's good for good for the goose for the gander? Less frivolously, "#deniergate" is a very widely accepted hashtag on Twitter, and the term has been picked up in many of the Mainstream Media articles and virtually all of blogs that have commented on the matters in hand. I readily accept that the term "scandal" may at this stage in the debate be a little incendiary, and have modified this to "controversy" accordingly. With the greatest respect, it is my firm conviction that any arguments attempting to disqualify use of the term "deniergate" are bereft of reasonable rationale.
Moving onto the matter of "confirmed suspicions". I struggle to see what is unacceptable with this. It is beyond contention that widespread suspicions have been held and articulated about the probability that HI has been funded by fossil fuel industry interests. With Charles Koch and Murray Energy Corporation, inter alia, revealed as HI donors, the contention that these beliefs have now been confirmed as facts by the revelation of the HI fundraising strategy document is beyond dispute.
I really am bewildered by the objection to "many revelations", in over 100 pages of indisputably genuine leaked internal HI documents there are simply heaps of them.
The "outspoken critic" reference is a direct quote from the gentleman's page as referred to, so again it is hard to imagine how this criticism can be substantiated.
I note that in the time it has taken me to compose this response , another user "Atlan" has withdrawn my edits. I look forward to continuing the discussion, but down here in Australia it is past my bedtime.
With the greatest respect and kind regards, and in earnest hope of a mutually acceptable resolution,
Shambala2011 ( talk) 13:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Re "achieved worldwide recognition and acclaim" - there can be no doubt this controversy has received worldwide attention. I accept that "acclaim" may lack encyclopaedic neutrality, and I'm very happy to see this expunged.
In February 2012, DeSmogBlog leaked a number of internal documents from the Heartland Institute. [3] During the resulting controversy the blog was referenced in media outlets including The Guardian [4] [5], the New York Times [6] and the BBC [7].
The leaked documents indicated support by the Heartland Institute for prominent climate science deniers including Fred Singer and Robert Carter, funding of $88,000 to a proposed new website to be run by Anthony Watts's blog Watts Up With That raising doubt about weather stations, and funding of $100,000 to a low level Department of Energy bureaucrat with a Ph.D to create school curriculum material aimed at raising doubt about the science of climate change. There were indications that the Heartland Institute is funded by coal industry interests such as the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Murray Energy Corporation. [8]
I think it is important to include the DeSmogBlog references so that readers have the opportunity to access the primary sources themselves, and form their own opinions as to their veracity and significance.
It is simply wrong to say that "DeSmogBlog leaked a number of internal documents" - to the best of my understanding, the documents were linked by a person or persons unknown to 15 recipients, although whether these included any editors or contibutors to DeSmogBlog I'm uncertain. DeSmogBlog, along with other then reported on these leaked documents and let the rest of the world know about them, but they emphatically did not do the act of leaking the documents, That was done by the source, and distinction is extremely significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambala2011 ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll give this some consideration, but it seems improper to me as a former secondary school history teacher, students of all kinds should be encouraged to refer to primary sources. I'm sure these historically significant posts will soon be overtaken on DeSmogBlog by other worth contributions, and see no reason why this article should not direct future readers directly to the source and save them the trouble of further searching. Please correct me if I am wrong about this o in breach of specific wikipedia policy provisions? Shambala2011 ( talk) 14:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC) − I have major reservations with the revised version:
- there is no reason to fail to reference the Guardian articles, when I have time I would like to add the New Scientist, Nature, ABC Drum and no doubt other reputable 3rd party articles on this unfolding story. - "Alan" Watts is incorrect, the blogger's name is "Anthony Watts". Even those who vehemently disagree with everything he says know this... - There are a lot more than "indications" that HI is funded by Koch and MEC, there is categorical proof in the fundraising plan on the previously cited, and I am left to question the motives behind removing these references. This is a fundamental point in the debate surrounding deniergate, it is an easily verifiable and highly significant fact and deserves to be included. - There are much more than "indications" that the HI is a source of funds of the NIPCC, it is now clearly thier project, and they are directly funding the 'lead authors' and 'contributors'
- The HI has only claimed one document has been faked, the others are indisputably genuine. Debate continues as to whether anything in the allegedly faked 'strategy' document is untrue, but having closely researched the primary sources and secondary commentary, I don't believe there is anything in this document that can't be substantiated. Shambala2011 ( talk) 14:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for your prompt responses Yunshui, would love to continue but really must get some sleep, will look at this again soon Shambala2011 ( talk) 14:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
References
Littlemore2008a
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Foster
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Text "DeSmogBlog" ignored (
help)
NYT
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The current infobox is inappropriate. It should be infobox website. Capitalismojo ( talk) 22:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
DeSmogBlog. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
This page is full of outdated content that violates RELTIME in any case, and is promotiona and repetitiously so. It should not be GA. I don't engage with that process but have tagged this talk page so people who do, will review it. Jytdog ( talk) 14:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on DeSmogBlog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
[1] [2] [3] TheRealMidnightGardener ( talk) 22:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
References
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] TheRealMidnightGardener ( talk) 22:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
References
was introduced by an IP in this edit. This, as well as "what it sees as" are fake insertions that are not based on the sources given.
In my edit summary [15], I wrote "Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia that regards DeSmog as a RS" - actually I wanted to delete the "that regards DeSmog as a RS" because I checked on WP:RSP and could not find it, but I pressed the wrong key. The rest of the summary stands. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
DeSmog has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
While searching for sources for this article, Academic OneFile listed an article by the Southern Rockies Nature Blogwhich reviewed and gave its opinion on DeSmogBlog. I did not include this information in the article, because the source is a blog. Does everyone agree with this, or should the blog's opinion be included in this article? The blog in question is sourced 14 times in Academic OneFile, but I otherwise couldn't find any other secondary sources which discusses this blog. Cla68 ( talk) 00:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I made some changes. This isn't the JH page, it is the DSB page. Etc. William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. There doesn't seem to be any clear reason for including this, and the heap of pointless redlinks don't help William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The page currently displays a citation error. The following reference needs to be either (a) actually used, (b) removed if it is never going to be used, or (c) moved to the unused comment if it will be:
I would fix it myself but am barred from doing so. -- GoRight ( talk) 23:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I just added a criticism section after noticing from the Watts Up With That article that such sections apparently should be included in these types of articles. I noticed that someone feels that criticism sections should be posted high in these types of articles. Does the same editor or any others think that the same thing should apply here? Cla68 ( talk) 10:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that attention needs to be drawn to DeSmogBlog's partisan and restrictive comments moderation regime, with access normally granted only to commenters supporting the site's alarmist pro-AGW views. Constructive debate and the refutation of any inaccuracies in blog posts are routinely frustrated. The site has a low volume of comments, and has developed no "blog culture", unlike many other blogs addressing the climate controversy. I'm not going to barge in with a page-edit yet; just seeing how it flies here first.-- Thon Brocket ( talk) 12:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you have refs? Jprw ( talk) 14:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll put some stuff together, but just to give for a flavour, here are the current top seven posts at DSB and WUWT, with dates and current number of comments:
DSB WUWT
17/3 - 0 18/3 - 20 15/3 - 0 18/3 - 21 15/3 - 0 17/3 - 119 15/3 - 0 17/3 - 149 13/3 - 0 17/3 - 52 12/3 - 0 17/3 - 88 11/3 - 1 17/3 - 109 |
...which bespeaks two very different cultures.-- Thon Brocket ( talk) 19:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
If I'm doing something dumb here, like looking in the wrong place for the DSB comments, somebody please flag me up. I hadn't realised just how bad it was until I did the count. WUWT is outperforming DSB 1000 to 1 here. WUWT's live, rough-and-tumble, productive comments culture, against a Lenin's Corpse at DSB. Surely they must receive more than ONE comment in a week? Weird. Evidently DSB have a big problem with undermanning and over-moderation which they're not telling us about; or they have a de-facto policy of not allowing comments, which they're likewise being coy about. The comments pages and links are window-dressing.
Stalinist. Strange. {Sniff} Smells like ... PR.-- Thon Brocket ( talk) 00:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to compare WUWT with a similar blog that features scientists rather than the proles Watts attracts, try Deltoid. But why are these comparisons being made anyway? ► RATEL ◄ 02:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
"Comments policy Although its format apparently allows comments, DeSmogBlog does not welcome them. In recent months (May 2010) most posts remain uncommented, and on the rare occasions that comments are posted, the comments are invariably authored by pro-AGW commenters. Adverse comment in response to blog posts is effectively prohibited, and no discussion of blog posts takes place on the site. The reasons for this state of affairs are unclear."
Nutley: I posted the above and you reverted it, citing "good faith" and verifiability. All of it is verifiable simply by looking at recent blog posts on DSB. Which leaves "good faith". Care to expound your reasoning? Is there a problem with pointing out DSB's Potemkin comments policy, and if so what is it? Thon Brocket ( talk) 20:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I added a sentence, using the Littlemore Sun article as the source, naming four of the organizations that this blog has "outed." Before adding them, I checked the blog itself and confirmed that what was reported in the Sun was accurate. There are at least four posts in the blog "outing" those four organizations. Should the reference also include links to the blog articles which "outed" those organizations, or is the Littlemore cite sufficient? Cla68 ( talk) 04:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I've pulled about as much information as can be pulled from the available sources for this article. I think all that's left now is to start stubs on some of the redlinks. I had asked WMC to do that and as far as I know he didn't say no. I guess I need to go ask him for an update on how that's going. Any further input on the article, such as to my question above, is, of course, always welcome. Cla68 ( talk) 07:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Cla there are a heap of Monbiot refs in The Guardian -- see my latest edit. Jprw ( talk) 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I just found some more references to ths blog on the National Post [1] [2] site. Cla68 ( talk) 01:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Cla in a very short period you've got the article looking very good -- far superior to WUWT. It would be interesting to see if the latter could also be brought up to scratch. Jprw ( talk) 08:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK we do not use this word when reporting what someone said. The blog said that these people had few publications and ties to ff industry. We do not say that the blog said that they allegedly had few publications and allegedly had ties. This is superfluous. We are reporting an allegation as it is, no need to double qualify it as such. ► RATEL ◄ 03:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for the clarification. Jprw ( talk) 13:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
A search in Infotrac produced several organizations that could be the "Urban Development Institute" that Hoggan apparently belongs to, including the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies, The Earth Institute, and several other organizations with similar names (Urban Development Research Institute, Urban Development Institue of Australia, Urban Land Institute, Urban Institute, and Institute for Urban Development) which don't currently have Wikipedia articles. Since I can't tell which of these organizations the "Urban Development Institute" is referring to, I'm going to remove the redlink and leave it until more information becomes available. If I find a spare moment, I may just email Hoggan and ask him. Cla68 ( talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the wikipedia definition of blog, DeSmogBlog does not fit. Its own name may be a misnomer. It's also a registered non-profit, so that's another non-blog sign. I can probably think of more. ► RATEL ◄ 11:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Fine by me. ► RATEL ◄ 02:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The article currently contains:
Cited to: Corcoran, Terence, " Terence Corcoran: Weaver’s Web II", National Post, December 9, 2009.
This misrepresents what they source actually states. Specifically it states:
This needs to be corrected but I am currently barred from editing the article. Would someone please make the necessary adjustments to reflect that the source actually used the word speculated? This distinction is not trivial. Thanks.
Also, in reading this particular source it is quite clear that the source believes that these supposed links to fossil fuel funding are ludicrous and this nuance is lost in the current text. For example, the source points out that there have also been similar break-ins in the Psychology department and so questions why the fossil fuel industry would be funding such break-ins. Perhaps this should be corrected so that the article actually reflects the tone and substance of the source. Thoughts? -- GoRight ( talk) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the point of adding the Alexa ranking to the lead. After all, we shouldn't include unexplained jargon in articles at all. There's no way for a reader to determine what that number means - does a high Alexa ranking mean that a site is popular, or than it's not popular? And what, in a general sense, does 75,000 mean? Even the Alexa Internet and Alexa Toolbar articles don't appear to answer these questions. Guettarda ( talk) 15:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Having read up a bit more on both Alexia and Quantcast i do not see how they can be a reliable indicator of a sites hits. With alexia there are two ways to do the stats. Alexia toolbar, you can get 100k hits, but if those people do not have alexia toolbar installed none are counted. The second way is to embed some code from alexia into your index.php, as we have no way of knowing if a site has this code in their index file then this is also worthless, the same problem occurs with quantcast, you need to embed their code in your index file, again as we do not know if a site has this code the result are worthless. The only way to know if quantcast code was in was if actual stats were sshown, not guesstimates. I would not support the use of alexia for a sites stats, and quantcast only if actual stats were returned on a search, and not just estimates mark nutley ( talk) 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I too can't see the point in including the traffic. Or, indeed, the quote by LS William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Going back to the question of Alexa rankings, these are essentially the Internet equivalent of straw polls, as they are drawn from people utilizing Alexa toolbars, and their accuracy is probably not precise enough for inclusion. DeSmogBlog has ways of including a counter showing its precise site traffic in the blog, if it so desired, and there are other and better measures of site traffic used by larger blogs, such as Nielsen. ScottyBerg ( talk) 17:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Alexa rankings are widely used. Metrics reported by sites themselves are, like newspaper circulation numbers, utterly inadmissible unless they have been independently audited. Some people may just not not like the site's ranking, but the fact is both relevant and topical. Fell Gleaming( talk) 19:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with Alexa either, other than some ramblings that appear to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fell Gleaming( talk) 19:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Make that 6-3 for removing the content. Alexa is useless for less trafficked sites, as everyone knows. ► RATEL ◄ 01:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
When you are talking about figures that are unreliable...
But you are non-specific as to the nature of the "figures" to which you refer. Alexa's self-acknowledged "unreliability" relates to a "ranking" of website traffic beyond the 100,000 level, not the underlying data upon which that website traffic assessment is based.
...since it is quite possible, albeit unlikely, (with the methodology that Alexa uses) to be the most visited website in the world - and have Alexa measure 0 visitors.
Interesting. To rebut my "analysis", you pose an undemonstrated hypothetical as justification for disregarding Alexa data. And my "analysis" is flawed? Lordy.
If their sample of the visitor pool isn't statistically significant compared to the total visitor pool - then nothing can be determined.
On the contrary. Alexa purports to make determinations that a website's low traffic doesn't afford them a capability to provide a reliable "ranking" when that website's traffic data places it above the 100,000 level. That "low traffic" characterization is arguably relevant and apropos to an article on a website entity. Whether Alexa is WP:RS in that regard is the subject of the RS/N.
I'll defer any further comment here pending the results of the RS/N. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 21:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the traffic content should stay. ATren ( talk) 03:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 23:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This is a fairly tight little article so I'll forgo the section by section review and give an overall look.
I've reread the article and feel that it is better. There is still a one-sentence paragraph in the "Mission and audience" sub-section. Other than that it's a pretty short but concise article that I think is better for the review process. I'll pass it to GA, keep up the good work. H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 16:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned by a pattern I notice in which a couple of pro-sceptic editors are responsible for peppering climate related articles ( Ian Plimer, Climate change denial and this one — those are just some of the ones I'm monitoring) with references to Monbiot. Some may conclude that it could be part of an effort to paint the anti-sceptic and anti-denialist side as consisting of one left-wing journalist on a crusade. I'm going to be scrutinizing every reference to Monbiot and seeing if it needs inclusion, or can be replaced by something better. ► RATEL ◄ 14:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that there has been a flurry of reverting over this section, lamentably without discussion. I believe that the section is too long and is problematic from a content standpoint. Blogs are not proper sources, especially on living people, and I don't see that changing by quoting from blogs by columnists and articles in reliably sourced publications. While the article linked may be of some value, I question its use to flesh out this article on a blog. ScottyBerg ( talk) 12:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
"Mission and Audience" may be WP:V problematical. Per WP:SELFPUB (list emphasis mine)...
I'm not clear that the following complies with either the letter or spirit of WP:SELFPUB...
Comments? JakeInJoisey ( talk) 13:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I have tagged this section as lacking reliable third-party sourcing, particularly for the content referenced by footnote 6. While I'm doubtful that this content can be properly supported as written given the WP:RS considerations and the source author's "affiliation with the subject", comments are solicited. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 01:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Phil England writes in The Ecologist that the strength of the book is the rigour of the research and the detailed focus on key incidents. He points out, however, that the climate change chapter is a only 50 pages long, and recommends several other books for readers who want to get a broader picture of this aspect: Jim Hoggan’s Climate Cover-Up, George Monbiot’s Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning and Ross Gelbspan’s The Heat is On and Boiling Point. England also points out that there is little coverage about the millions of dollars Exxon Mobil has put into funding a plethora of groups actively involved in promoting climate change denial and doubt. [11]
99.181.141.119 ( talk) 02:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The whole 'deniergate' section and the changes to the lead made in the same edit fail NPOV. 'Deniergate' is not a neutral & commonly-accepted term. There are plenty of problems with phrasing: 'confirmed suspicions', 'achieved worldwide recognition and acclaim', 'many revelations', 'outspoken critic' are all loaded or emotive terms, or carry implications which should (if true) be made explicit and sourced. Not sourced from DeSmogBlog itself, either.
This info should go into the article, but neither the 'deniergate' version or a previous editor's 'fakegate' version come close to encyclopedic, neutral language. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
−
Many thanks for addressing these concerns Squiddy, and I ask for your forbearance with any clumsiness in my editing, I have to confess to being a relative wikipedia newbie. However, I have to take issue with your assertion that "Deniergate" is "not a neutral & commonly-accepted term". It is a highly fitting and deserved riposte to "climategate" of which the HI was and remains an enthusiastic promoter. Surely, what's good for good for the goose for the gander? Less frivolously, "#deniergate" is a very widely accepted hashtag on Twitter, and the term has been picked up in many of the Mainstream Media articles and virtually all of blogs that have commented on the matters in hand. I readily accept that the term "scandal" may at this stage in the debate be a little incendiary, and have modified this to "controversy" accordingly. With the greatest respect, it is my firm conviction that any arguments attempting to disqualify use of the term "deniergate" are bereft of reasonable rationale.
Moving onto the matter of "confirmed suspicions". I struggle to see what is unacceptable with this. It is beyond contention that widespread suspicions have been held and articulated about the probability that HI has been funded by fossil fuel industry interests. With Charles Koch and Murray Energy Corporation, inter alia, revealed as HI donors, the contention that these beliefs have now been confirmed as facts by the revelation of the HI fundraising strategy document is beyond dispute.
I really am bewildered by the objection to "many revelations", in over 100 pages of indisputably genuine leaked internal HI documents there are simply heaps of them.
The "outspoken critic" reference is a direct quote from the gentleman's page as referred to, so again it is hard to imagine how this criticism can be substantiated.
I note that in the time it has taken me to compose this response , another user "Atlan" has withdrawn my edits. I look forward to continuing the discussion, but down here in Australia it is past my bedtime.
With the greatest respect and kind regards, and in earnest hope of a mutually acceptable resolution,
Shambala2011 ( talk) 13:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Re "achieved worldwide recognition and acclaim" - there can be no doubt this controversy has received worldwide attention. I accept that "acclaim" may lack encyclopaedic neutrality, and I'm very happy to see this expunged.
In February 2012, DeSmogBlog leaked a number of internal documents from the Heartland Institute. [3] During the resulting controversy the blog was referenced in media outlets including The Guardian [4] [5], the New York Times [6] and the BBC [7].
The leaked documents indicated support by the Heartland Institute for prominent climate science deniers including Fred Singer and Robert Carter, funding of $88,000 to a proposed new website to be run by Anthony Watts's blog Watts Up With That raising doubt about weather stations, and funding of $100,000 to a low level Department of Energy bureaucrat with a Ph.D to create school curriculum material aimed at raising doubt about the science of climate change. There were indications that the Heartland Institute is funded by coal industry interests such as the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Murray Energy Corporation. [8]
I think it is important to include the DeSmogBlog references so that readers have the opportunity to access the primary sources themselves, and form their own opinions as to their veracity and significance.
It is simply wrong to say that "DeSmogBlog leaked a number of internal documents" - to the best of my understanding, the documents were linked by a person or persons unknown to 15 recipients, although whether these included any editors or contibutors to DeSmogBlog I'm uncertain. DeSmogBlog, along with other then reported on these leaked documents and let the rest of the world know about them, but they emphatically did not do the act of leaking the documents, That was done by the source, and distinction is extremely significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambala2011 ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll give this some consideration, but it seems improper to me as a former secondary school history teacher, students of all kinds should be encouraged to refer to primary sources. I'm sure these historically significant posts will soon be overtaken on DeSmogBlog by other worth contributions, and see no reason why this article should not direct future readers directly to the source and save them the trouble of further searching. Please correct me if I am wrong about this o in breach of specific wikipedia policy provisions? Shambala2011 ( talk) 14:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC) − I have major reservations with the revised version:
- there is no reason to fail to reference the Guardian articles, when I have time I would like to add the New Scientist, Nature, ABC Drum and no doubt other reputable 3rd party articles on this unfolding story. - "Alan" Watts is incorrect, the blogger's name is "Anthony Watts". Even those who vehemently disagree with everything he says know this... - There are a lot more than "indications" that HI is funded by Koch and MEC, there is categorical proof in the fundraising plan on the previously cited, and I am left to question the motives behind removing these references. This is a fundamental point in the debate surrounding deniergate, it is an easily verifiable and highly significant fact and deserves to be included. - There are much more than "indications" that the HI is a source of funds of the NIPCC, it is now clearly thier project, and they are directly funding the 'lead authors' and 'contributors'
- The HI has only claimed one document has been faked, the others are indisputably genuine. Debate continues as to whether anything in the allegedly faked 'strategy' document is untrue, but having closely researched the primary sources and secondary commentary, I don't believe there is anything in this document that can't be substantiated. Shambala2011 ( talk) 14:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for your prompt responses Yunshui, would love to continue but really must get some sleep, will look at this again soon Shambala2011 ( talk) 14:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
References
Littlemore2008a
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Foster
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Text "DeSmogBlog" ignored (
help)
NYT
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The current infobox is inappropriate. It should be infobox website. Capitalismojo ( talk) 22:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
DeSmogBlog. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
This page is full of outdated content that violates RELTIME in any case, and is promotiona and repetitiously so. It should not be GA. I don't engage with that process but have tagged this talk page so people who do, will review it. Jytdog ( talk) 14:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on DeSmogBlog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
[1] [2] [3] TheRealMidnightGardener ( talk) 22:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
References
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] TheRealMidnightGardener ( talk) 22:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
References
was introduced by an IP in this edit. This, as well as "what it sees as" are fake insertions that are not based on the sources given.
In my edit summary [15], I wrote "Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia that regards DeSmog as a RS" - actually I wanted to delete the "that regards DeSmog as a RS" because I checked on WP:RSP and could not find it, but I pressed the wrong key. The rest of the summary stands. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)