![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on July 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating 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. |
This article is phrased in a "they claim" sort of voice, has no references and is a cut down copy of the Disinfopedia. I'm not saying outright it has problems, but I would like someone to check it... 68.39.174.238 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Jacoby, Jeff (
November 5,
1998). "Scientists don't agree on global warming". The Boston Globe. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Hill, Richard L. (
May 10,
1998). "Iconoclastic researcher warms up the debate". The Oregonian. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I came here after reading this http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Oregon-Petition I'm surprised the article is so tame. 71.193.243.8 ( talk) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I've removed this entire section from the article. While it may be true (and I suspect it is), we don't disparage institutions or people without firm, reliable sources. As it was, the section (even when the section header was removed) was unsourced OR. If there is real criticism of this institution then I'm sure you can find some good sources documenting it. -- ElKevbo ( talk) 04:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi User:William_M._Connolley. I deleted the negative POV implying that an institute and faculty can only exist at large scale universities, such as those that are publicly funded by federal, state, and tax subsidies. You reversed it, asking why it wouldn't be relevent. Please read the discussion already ongoing on the talk page for the answer to that question. While I don't think it belongs anywhere in the article, the most it could possibly deserve is mention in a controversies section. Please William, in the future, check the discussion page where your questions may already be answered. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 00:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The article uses quotes to establish a doubtful point of view:
It describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging."
Wiki articles are supposed to be neutral POV. This is a clear violation. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 00:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
As an article that is under probation, this WP page obviously should have special diligence for providing references. I'm dismayed to see the same unreferenced assertions about Dr. Westall are being posted over and over again, in an edit war. Stop this childishness! If it isn't referenced, then don't post it! BobbieCharlton ( talk) 18:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on July 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating 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. |
This article is phrased in a "they claim" sort of voice, has no references and is a cut down copy of the Disinfopedia. I'm not saying outright it has problems, but I would like someone to check it... 68.39.174.238 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Jacoby, Jeff (
November 5,
1998). "Scientists don't agree on global warming". The Boston Globe. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Hill, Richard L. (
May 10,
1998). "Iconoclastic researcher warms up the debate". The Oregonian. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I came here after reading this http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Oregon-Petition I'm surprised the article is so tame. 71.193.243.8 ( talk) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I've removed this entire section from the article. While it may be true (and I suspect it is), we don't disparage institutions or people without firm, reliable sources. As it was, the section (even when the section header was removed) was unsourced OR. If there is real criticism of this institution then I'm sure you can find some good sources documenting it. -- ElKevbo ( talk) 04:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi User:William_M._Connolley. I deleted the negative POV implying that an institute and faculty can only exist at large scale universities, such as those that are publicly funded by federal, state, and tax subsidies. You reversed it, asking why it wouldn't be relevent. Please read the discussion already ongoing on the talk page for the answer to that question. While I don't think it belongs anywhere in the article, the most it could possibly deserve is mention in a controversies section. Please William, in the future, check the discussion page where your questions may already be answered. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 00:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The article uses quotes to establish a doubtful point of view:
It describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging."
Wiki articles are supposed to be neutral POV. This is a clear violation. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 00:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
As an article that is under probation, this WP page obviously should have special diligence for providing references. I'm dismayed to see the same unreferenced assertions about Dr. Westall are being posted over and over again, in an edit war. Stop this childishness! If it isn't referenced, then don't post it! BobbieCharlton ( talk) 18:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)