This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This page appears to be suffering from anon vandalism (all my hard work of last night reverted as "whitewash"), so I've semi-protected it for a bit William M. Connolley 09:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Why does this page say it's an article about a climatologist or meteorologist? His credentials clearly state "Pielke has a B.A. in mathematics (1990); a M.A. in public policy (1992) and a PhD in political science, all from the University of Colorado." He's a meterologist or climatologist like Noam Chomsky is a political scientist.
I removed the "climatologist" bit. John Fleck 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
These guys are really grasping at straws. When I testified before Senate EPW Jeffords was Chairman and Smith (NH) was ranking Republican. Smith was quite moderate on climate issues. Roger Pielke, Jr. 6 May 2007
Pielke edits his own page, clearly a conflict of interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.213.231 ( talk • contribs)
I've added a reflist and will try to get round to reformatting the references soon. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 08:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
There have been repeated attempts to introduce an alleged comment from Stephen Schneider, sourced only to a supposed email on a blog. This seems to be in clear breach of WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLOGS, and as such can be reverted at any time.
If you believe this source to be reliable, please request a second opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thank you. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 18:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article at least mention his time at FiveThirtyEight and the controversy it caused? KarlFrei ( talk) 09:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the word "conservative" from the descriptions of the publications that defended Pielke (end of section 2). Two publications are cited, one of which is conservative ( National Review) and one of which isn't ( Denver Post). The word is prejudicial, and there is no basis to include it when one of the two cited publications is conservative.
User:Evolauxia reverted my edit, but even the comment left in the revert was prejudicial in editorializing the context in which the Denver Post article was written by claiming the Denver Post was "citing the controversy in a conservative bent". I don't normally revert without first discussing, but in this case I believe the onus is on Evolauxia to make a case for including the adjective.
— Doug Bell 08:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"[U]ndisclosed COI is endemic in scientific publishing. ... If COI disclosure is a good idea, and I think that it is, then it should be applied consistently across academic publishing and testimony, rather than being used as a selectively applied political bludgeon by campaigning journalists and politicians seeking to delegitimize certian academics whose work they do not like." [emphasis added]
Maybe should wait for a 3rd-party cite before adding this to the article? -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 08:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Mr Pielke Jr is 'known for Politicization of Science' according to his Wiki page. I submit this is an unsupported subjective opinion based on double standards (climate change advocates never use their claims to support a political agenda?). Not to mention a gratuitous cheap shot. I suggest you apply the same standard to Al Gore and Michael Mann or remove this smear of a recognized and eminently qualified climate authority. 65.49.176.54 ( talk) 19:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your action. 65.49.176.54 ( talk) 23:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This page appears to be suffering from anon vandalism (all my hard work of last night reverted as "whitewash"), so I've semi-protected it for a bit William M. Connolley 09:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Why does this page say it's an article about a climatologist or meteorologist? His credentials clearly state "Pielke has a B.A. in mathematics (1990); a M.A. in public policy (1992) and a PhD in political science, all from the University of Colorado." He's a meterologist or climatologist like Noam Chomsky is a political scientist.
I removed the "climatologist" bit. John Fleck 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
These guys are really grasping at straws. When I testified before Senate EPW Jeffords was Chairman and Smith (NH) was ranking Republican. Smith was quite moderate on climate issues. Roger Pielke, Jr. 6 May 2007
Pielke edits his own page, clearly a conflict of interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.213.231 ( talk • contribs)
I've added a reflist and will try to get round to reformatting the references soon. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 08:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
There have been repeated attempts to introduce an alleged comment from Stephen Schneider, sourced only to a supposed email on a blog. This seems to be in clear breach of WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLOGS, and as such can be reverted at any time.
If you believe this source to be reliable, please request a second opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thank you. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 18:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article at least mention his time at FiveThirtyEight and the controversy it caused? KarlFrei ( talk) 09:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the word "conservative" from the descriptions of the publications that defended Pielke (end of section 2). Two publications are cited, one of which is conservative ( National Review) and one of which isn't ( Denver Post). The word is prejudicial, and there is no basis to include it when one of the two cited publications is conservative.
User:Evolauxia reverted my edit, but even the comment left in the revert was prejudicial in editorializing the context in which the Denver Post article was written by claiming the Denver Post was "citing the controversy in a conservative bent". I don't normally revert without first discussing, but in this case I believe the onus is on Evolauxia to make a case for including the adjective.
— Doug Bell 08:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"[U]ndisclosed COI is endemic in scientific publishing. ... If COI disclosure is a good idea, and I think that it is, then it should be applied consistently across academic publishing and testimony, rather than being used as a selectively applied political bludgeon by campaigning journalists and politicians seeking to delegitimize certian academics whose work they do not like." [emphasis added]
Maybe should wait for a 3rd-party cite before adding this to the article? -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 08:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Mr Pielke Jr is 'known for Politicization of Science' according to his Wiki page. I submit this is an unsupported subjective opinion based on double standards (climate change advocates never use their claims to support a political agenda?). Not to mention a gratuitous cheap shot. I suggest you apply the same standard to Al Gore and Michael Mann or remove this smear of a recognized and eminently qualified climate authority. 65.49.176.54 ( talk) 19:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your action. 65.49.176.54 ( talk) 23:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)