![]() | A news item involving John Coleman (meteorologist) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 January 2018. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In what subject did Coleman receive his degree? I can't find anything. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 05:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC) -Thank you! I was wondering the same thing. This article makes not mention of his education, does he even have any???
Unless there is a source for these they should be deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
As currently presented, this article is inaccurate, incomplete and misleading. The article needs to be modified to contain critical lacking information, more about which is said below. Mr. Coleman's principal claim to fame resides in the fact that he has been an extremely vocal and outspoken critic of anthropogenic global warming. He has appeared on numerous TV shows and written several articles on this topic, where he has stridently attacked the notion of anthropogenic global warming. His articles and media appearances have garnered much public attention and reaction, and have been used by many in support of the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is a "scam." What is missing from the article, however, is the important fact that Mr. Coleman has no scientific, technical or engineering training or education (he has a degree in journalism), and possesses no expertise in climatology other than having read meteorological forecasts on TV prepared by others. This is critical information of which the public should be aware when assessing the efficacy and accuracy of Mr. Coleman's strong claims, who essentially holds himself out to the pubic as an "expert" on meteorology and climatology despite the fact that he is neither. In fact, Mr. Coleman's technical and scientific background is so weak that he could not today obtain certification by the American Meterology Society (AMS) as a Certified Broadcast Meteorologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundraline ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It is well established that Mr. Coleman earned a degree in journalism. I am unaware, and there is no public record, of Mr. Coleman possessing any academic certifications or qualifications in addition to his journalism degree. Moreover, I am unaware of any journalism program anywhere in the USA that requires students to take courses in science, engineering or even mathematics. A degree in journalism is a liberal arts degree, and confers no technical knowledge or training. Being that the preceding is by all appearances, and according to publicly available information, the case, Mr. Coleman could not today even sit for the AMS broadcaster's certification exam, which requires a certain minimum number of semester hours of coursework in meteorology or related disciplines. If Mr. Coleman nevertheless possesses technical training or a technical background of some sort that has somehow escaped the public eye, he should post it here on the page devoted to his biography so that we the public can be better informed about his background and perhaps arrive at the presently unfounded conclusion that Mr. Coleman is qualified to present a credible opinion about anthropogenic global warming.
Most TV weathermen are merely personable people who read weather forecasts prepared by others. They have no expertise in climate science. Coleman's major claim to fame is his declarations that Global Climate Change is a hoax. His talks on that have been called illogical and uninformed with comical errors and have been rebutted. Smears on Al Gore may find support with a certain segment of the American public but are not factual debate. Some mention of the controversial nature of his claims should be made. Elemming ( talk) 14:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that he has no formal training in meteorology, should the title "meteorologist" not be changed to "weather reporter" or some such? There are actual meteorology programs at universities. He was trained as a journalist.
Jlooman (
talk) 12:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[User Jlooman]
The article claims his views have found a 'large following' but see my hidden comment for why I fact tagged the sentence [2] Nil Einne ( talk) 09:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This claim "Coleman has no education in the field of climate change. Coleman sees himself as an expert on weather (albeit a journalism degree), not on climate or climate change.[7][8]" - links to blog posts.
Surely random blog posts shouldn't be the basis of a such a bold claim about his education and academic suitability for making statements about climate change.
Additionally "Coleman has no education in the field of climate change" is more of an opinion that a statement. Are there any widly recognised bachelors degrees, or post grads in climate change? Sure there are plenty of researchers working on climate change, and it would be fair to say that My Coleman has not published papers on climate change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.145.234 ( talk) 10:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I added back the line about his education and expertise. Both of which are based on his own words and have proper REFs. His education is in journalism and he himself has stated that he is a "mere TV weatherman" who has "read dozens of scientific papers", "talked with numerous scientists", and "studied" this issue. He is not an expert but the other paragraphs before seem to imply he is by his reports and followers. This is improper and NPOV based on previous editors. This line tries to makes the full section more neutral and not biased toward this field or implied expertise. -- Sallynice ( talk) 14:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Sallynice, I agree with Amalthea 100% that the following text is inappropriate for a BLP, as it speaks in Wikipedia's voice and is really just synthesis/original research:
Coleman has no education in the field of climate change. Coleman sees himself as an expert on weather (albeit a journalism degree in 1957 from the University of Illinois), not on climate or climate change.
However, it may be reasonable to add a brief mention to that subsection that there are critics who take issue with Coleman in that regard. For example, perhaps something like this:
Critics of Coleman's views such as ThinkProgress and the Centrist Party have questioned Coleman's lack of academic credentials and charge that he has not conducted actual research in the area of climate change. [1] [2]
In such fashion, we only inform the reader that others have criticized Coleman in that regard, and leave it to the reader to follow those references if they want to know more. Just a suggestion... I'd recommend getting Amalthea's input on that before actually inserting it. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 16:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
References
I recently edited the "Views on global warming" section to improve the <ref>s. I also noticed major problems with this paragraph:
So I moved the mention of the ThinkProgress blog item to the first para, and changed it to
Subsequently, 72.196.235.207 ( talk · contribs) restored the previous wording in the previous place (along with 3 irrelevant refs). I've now undone that edit. I believe my version is neutral and factual, while the previous version was inaccurate and POV. In fact, I suspect using the ThinkProgress blog post is a BLP violation, even when we accurately summarize it.
Any comments? CWC 18:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Neither of the references include anything related to the statement that Coleman has not conducted any research into climate change. To the contrary, the Guardian article explicitly refutes that claim by including quotes affirming that Coleman has, in fact, researched the matter. The validity of that research is a separate matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:8480:4110:E421:6362:8142:1447 ( talk) 22:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Last May, User:Sagredo added a paragraph to the "Views on global warming" section noting the mainstream view on the subject and explaining the difference between a TV weatherman and a climatologist. This was appropriate, and brought the page into line with core Wikipedia policy, which says that coverage of conspiracy theories like Coleman's should include a prominent description of the mainstream reception of those conspiracy theories. Recent edits by an IP editor and User:Collect have removed most or all of this material, leaving three short paragraphs uncritically reporting Coleman's views and one sentence (or nothing) pointing the reader to more mainstream views. It would be better to delete the article than leave such a flagrant violation of WP:WEIGHT in place. - Cal Engime ( talk) 20:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Removed sock comments
This edit by a particular sock has been removed by 5 different people, thus that edit should not be recognized for any consensus, you make an edit while you were wikihounding [8] and it was reverted because of its irrelevance and misleading approach, thus it would require consensus. I am trying WP:FTN. You are not even understanding what I said, I never talked about him leaving AMS, you are unnecessarily bringing it up similar to the sock above. I said that we should not have views of the organization that have no bearing on Coleman's view. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I have removed several items from this section because they are sourced to original broadcasts. This is a biography, it is very important to adhere to Wikipedia policy of reliable independent sourcing. This is especially important when we are pinning obviously insane conspiracy theories on someone. I don't doubt that he is a global warming denier who presents the science on climate change as some massive conspiracy of scientists (an amusing idea, anyone who thinks scientists could conspire in this way has obviously never tried to get any group of scientists to agree on anything, however trivial), but we definitely need to attribute this to reliable independent sources that give context and note the reception among not just his base but also the reality-based community. Guy ( Help!) 08:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Self published sources are only really acceptable for uncontroversial content, especially in biographies. These are statements that make him look like a lunatic. Maybe he is, but if so we need independent coverage to establish significanceandcontext. Guy ( Help!) 06:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry but who ever wrote the sophomoric crap as it currently is on Mr.Coleman's views on the global warming theory (*Climate Change*?) is very very biased. The writer presents critics of the Mr. Coleman as factual when in fact they only have opinions. Lets try to be less political OK? Just the facts please. -- 75.130.91.73 ( talk) 22:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I thought about leaving this in but, I really don't think it's a good idea to cite contentious content to opinion pieces. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on
WP:BLPN and
WP:CFD the category was deleted.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 16:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Coleman (news weathercaster). 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, 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | A news item involving John Coleman (meteorologist) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 January 2018. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In what subject did Coleman receive his degree? I can't find anything. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 05:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC) -Thank you! I was wondering the same thing. This article makes not mention of his education, does he even have any???
Unless there is a source for these they should be deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
As currently presented, this article is inaccurate, incomplete and misleading. The article needs to be modified to contain critical lacking information, more about which is said below. Mr. Coleman's principal claim to fame resides in the fact that he has been an extremely vocal and outspoken critic of anthropogenic global warming. He has appeared on numerous TV shows and written several articles on this topic, where he has stridently attacked the notion of anthropogenic global warming. His articles and media appearances have garnered much public attention and reaction, and have been used by many in support of the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is a "scam." What is missing from the article, however, is the important fact that Mr. Coleman has no scientific, technical or engineering training or education (he has a degree in journalism), and possesses no expertise in climatology other than having read meteorological forecasts on TV prepared by others. This is critical information of which the public should be aware when assessing the efficacy and accuracy of Mr. Coleman's strong claims, who essentially holds himself out to the pubic as an "expert" on meteorology and climatology despite the fact that he is neither. In fact, Mr. Coleman's technical and scientific background is so weak that he could not today obtain certification by the American Meterology Society (AMS) as a Certified Broadcast Meteorologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundraline ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It is well established that Mr. Coleman earned a degree in journalism. I am unaware, and there is no public record, of Mr. Coleman possessing any academic certifications or qualifications in addition to his journalism degree. Moreover, I am unaware of any journalism program anywhere in the USA that requires students to take courses in science, engineering or even mathematics. A degree in journalism is a liberal arts degree, and confers no technical knowledge or training. Being that the preceding is by all appearances, and according to publicly available information, the case, Mr. Coleman could not today even sit for the AMS broadcaster's certification exam, which requires a certain minimum number of semester hours of coursework in meteorology or related disciplines. If Mr. Coleman nevertheless possesses technical training or a technical background of some sort that has somehow escaped the public eye, he should post it here on the page devoted to his biography so that we the public can be better informed about his background and perhaps arrive at the presently unfounded conclusion that Mr. Coleman is qualified to present a credible opinion about anthropogenic global warming.
Most TV weathermen are merely personable people who read weather forecasts prepared by others. They have no expertise in climate science. Coleman's major claim to fame is his declarations that Global Climate Change is a hoax. His talks on that have been called illogical and uninformed with comical errors and have been rebutted. Smears on Al Gore may find support with a certain segment of the American public but are not factual debate. Some mention of the controversial nature of his claims should be made. Elemming ( talk) 14:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that he has no formal training in meteorology, should the title "meteorologist" not be changed to "weather reporter" or some such? There are actual meteorology programs at universities. He was trained as a journalist.
Jlooman (
talk) 12:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[User Jlooman]
The article claims his views have found a 'large following' but see my hidden comment for why I fact tagged the sentence [2] Nil Einne ( talk) 09:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This claim "Coleman has no education in the field of climate change. Coleman sees himself as an expert on weather (albeit a journalism degree), not on climate or climate change.[7][8]" - links to blog posts.
Surely random blog posts shouldn't be the basis of a such a bold claim about his education and academic suitability for making statements about climate change.
Additionally "Coleman has no education in the field of climate change" is more of an opinion that a statement. Are there any widly recognised bachelors degrees, or post grads in climate change? Sure there are plenty of researchers working on climate change, and it would be fair to say that My Coleman has not published papers on climate change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.145.234 ( talk) 10:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I added back the line about his education and expertise. Both of which are based on his own words and have proper REFs. His education is in journalism and he himself has stated that he is a "mere TV weatherman" who has "read dozens of scientific papers", "talked with numerous scientists", and "studied" this issue. He is not an expert but the other paragraphs before seem to imply he is by his reports and followers. This is improper and NPOV based on previous editors. This line tries to makes the full section more neutral and not biased toward this field or implied expertise. -- Sallynice ( talk) 14:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Sallynice, I agree with Amalthea 100% that the following text is inappropriate for a BLP, as it speaks in Wikipedia's voice and is really just synthesis/original research:
Coleman has no education in the field of climate change. Coleman sees himself as an expert on weather (albeit a journalism degree in 1957 from the University of Illinois), not on climate or climate change.
However, it may be reasonable to add a brief mention to that subsection that there are critics who take issue with Coleman in that regard. For example, perhaps something like this:
Critics of Coleman's views such as ThinkProgress and the Centrist Party have questioned Coleman's lack of academic credentials and charge that he has not conducted actual research in the area of climate change. [1] [2]
In such fashion, we only inform the reader that others have criticized Coleman in that regard, and leave it to the reader to follow those references if they want to know more. Just a suggestion... I'd recommend getting Amalthea's input on that before actually inserting it. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 16:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
References
I recently edited the "Views on global warming" section to improve the <ref>s. I also noticed major problems with this paragraph:
So I moved the mention of the ThinkProgress blog item to the first para, and changed it to
Subsequently, 72.196.235.207 ( talk · contribs) restored the previous wording in the previous place (along with 3 irrelevant refs). I've now undone that edit. I believe my version is neutral and factual, while the previous version was inaccurate and POV. In fact, I suspect using the ThinkProgress blog post is a BLP violation, even when we accurately summarize it.
Any comments? CWC 18:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Neither of the references include anything related to the statement that Coleman has not conducted any research into climate change. To the contrary, the Guardian article explicitly refutes that claim by including quotes affirming that Coleman has, in fact, researched the matter. The validity of that research is a separate matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:8480:4110:E421:6362:8142:1447 ( talk) 22:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Last May, User:Sagredo added a paragraph to the "Views on global warming" section noting the mainstream view on the subject and explaining the difference between a TV weatherman and a climatologist. This was appropriate, and brought the page into line with core Wikipedia policy, which says that coverage of conspiracy theories like Coleman's should include a prominent description of the mainstream reception of those conspiracy theories. Recent edits by an IP editor and User:Collect have removed most or all of this material, leaving three short paragraphs uncritically reporting Coleman's views and one sentence (or nothing) pointing the reader to more mainstream views. It would be better to delete the article than leave such a flagrant violation of WP:WEIGHT in place. - Cal Engime ( talk) 20:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Removed sock comments
This edit by a particular sock has been removed by 5 different people, thus that edit should not be recognized for any consensus, you make an edit while you were wikihounding [8] and it was reverted because of its irrelevance and misleading approach, thus it would require consensus. I am trying WP:FTN. You are not even understanding what I said, I never talked about him leaving AMS, you are unnecessarily bringing it up similar to the sock above. I said that we should not have views of the organization that have no bearing on Coleman's view. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I have removed several items from this section because they are sourced to original broadcasts. This is a biography, it is very important to adhere to Wikipedia policy of reliable independent sourcing. This is especially important when we are pinning obviously insane conspiracy theories on someone. I don't doubt that he is a global warming denier who presents the science on climate change as some massive conspiracy of scientists (an amusing idea, anyone who thinks scientists could conspire in this way has obviously never tried to get any group of scientists to agree on anything, however trivial), but we definitely need to attribute this to reliable independent sources that give context and note the reception among not just his base but also the reality-based community. Guy ( Help!) 08:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Self published sources are only really acceptable for uncontroversial content, especially in biographies. These are statements that make him look like a lunatic. Maybe he is, but if so we need independent coverage to establish significanceandcontext. Guy ( Help!) 06:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry but who ever wrote the sophomoric crap as it currently is on Mr.Coleman's views on the global warming theory (*Climate Change*?) is very very biased. The writer presents critics of the Mr. Coleman as factual when in fact they only have opinions. Lets try to be less political OK? Just the facts please. -- 75.130.91.73 ( talk) 22:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I thought about leaving this in but, I really don't think it's a good idea to cite contentious content to opinion pieces. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on
WP:BLPN and
WP:CFD the category was deleted.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 16:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Coleman (news weathercaster). 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, 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)