This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Roy Spencer (meteorologist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 C-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. |
User:Hob Gadling moved Roy Spencer (scientist) to Roy Spencer (meteorologist). I do not agree that this is necessary, and effectively reverted. However, if others feel the same way as Hob Gadling, I think this is a good place to discuss why. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 01:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The only reason for moving the page would be to help readers who reach a disambiguation page - or who are typing in his name one character at a time in the search box. As soon as they see "(scientist)" they know it's the guy who writes about global warming and climate change. [If they see "(meteorologist)" the reader - not the graduate-degree-holding contributors who frequent talk pages like this, but the average reader - might think it's just the TV weatherman who presents the forecast.]
Let's think about public perception and keep our focus on helping the reader. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Roy Spencer (scientist). 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Roy Spencer (scientist). 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
[1] I don't see how this is an improvement. Now we are just echoing his pseudoscientific beliefs without any hint from mainstream sources that what he says is bullshit, making the section WP:PROFRINGE. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.-- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.We're not discussing the mainstream discourse, we're discussing their views on something that has broadly discussed in independent sources.
In TCS Daily, Spencer embraced the pseudoscience of intelligent designdoesn't belong anywhere in a Wikipedia biography. Not unless we are adopting George Orwell's 'Principles of Newspeak' as an instruction manual. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
This section in Spencer's BLP is about his viewsWhat Spencer is saying can be found on the talk.origins Index of Creationist Claims:
insert an introductory disclaimer per WP:BLPFRINGESo you do see what the actual problem is. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Jo-Jo A's edit was an improvement over two rudimentary sentences. I have seen nothing here to justify that opinion - writing nothing is still better than replicating contextless fringe ideas. See Talk:Thomas Sowell#Reversion of Sowell's climate change denial, Talk:Thomas Sowell/Archive 4#Climate Change Section and Talk:Alexander Gorodnitsky#His views on climate change. Your addition is an improvement over Jo-Jo A's edit, although it is unsourced and therefore vulnerable to WP:SYNTH. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
it seems you may just be arguing for the sake of arguing.No, I am arguing for the sake of Wikipedia pages not promoting climate change denial. A similar discussion is ongoing on Talk:Benny Peiser, and here are some more quotes from policies and guidelines that justify removing profringe quotes by profringe people from articles about those profringe people. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
the discussion on the talk page doesn't show a consensus to remove this
You need consensus to include things, not to remove them. There was no reason given why we should include Spencer's anti-science opinions without mainstream refutations. Since a link to the Peiser Talk page does not seem to be enough, I copy the reasoning from the Peiser Talk page here, replacing the key names and terms:
The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight.If we quote Spencer's ignorant opinions but no mainstream refutations of them, that means we do not include
all majority and significant-minority positions.
Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context. If we quote Spencer's ignorant opinions but no mainstream refutations of them, that means we do not locate them within a context.
Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. ID proponents are a non-negligible group outside of science but a tiny one within the relevant groups, the biologists. If we quote Spencer's ignorant opinions but no mainstream refutations of them, we
give disproportionate spaceto them.
While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community.If we quote Spencer's ignorant opinions but no mainstream refutations of them, we
obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community.
Did I jump through the bureaucratic hoop well enough? Do I have to repeat that every time I want to remove bullshit antiscience propaganda from an article? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
You are saying that we should not include all majority and significant-minority positions, violating WP:FRINGE.The positions we're discussing are the article subject's views. I'm not sure why providing his views in an article about him in a section outlining his views would need more positions?
You are saying that we should not locate claims derived from fringe theories within a context, violating WP:FRINGE... You are saying that we should give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints, violating WP:BLP.The claim is that the article subject believes something, not that the thing is true. This is covered in both primary and secondary sources, with the context provided by those sources.
You are saying that we should obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community, violating WP:NPOV.Not even sure where that comes from? The mainstream scientific views, as provided by secondary sources discussing the subject, are included. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
The mainstream scientific views, as provided by secondary sources discussing the subject, are included.For watchers: When I wrote the above, they were not. Please do not let yourself be misled. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Spencer holds contrarian views on climate change and intelligent design. These views are rejected by the scientific community.[13] at the top of the views section. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Spencer holds contrarian views on climate change and intelligent design, which still gets the point across and didn't necessitate removing a clearly notable section. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design. I was initially reticent to mention that, since it seems like an ad hominem. But I think it’s relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism.It's added now. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Arriving late to the party, I see basically two sources which pass my WP:FRIND detector: the Christian Science Monitor and Phil Plait. The primary stuff to Spencer himself shouldn't be included unless there are third-party independent citations to it that are relevant and, in that case, those sources need to be included for context. As I see it, the relevance is the claimed connection between global warming denialism and creationism as explored in the Monitor piece. Plait's criticism seems legitimate as Plait is fairly clearly an expert in discerning pseudoscience, creationism, etc. jps ( talk) 19:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Spencer is also on the advisory board of the Cornwall Alliance, a group with 'An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming' claiming that "Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory." The declaration also has a section on "What We Deny," and Spencer recently wrote in The Christian Postfrom The Guardian and also
In Huntsville, Christy began working with a NASA scientist, Roy Spencer. Spencer shared Christy’s religious orientation—he has written about rejecting the science of evolution in favor of the creationist theory known as intelligent design, and described himself as a “Bible-believing scientist“—and Christy’s skepticism over an issue that by the late 1980s was creating an upheaval in atmospheric science: climate change.from Inside Climate News. It may make more sense to combine the climate change and intelligent design views under one heading since they're normally discussed together, and it seems that his views on intelligent design color his views on climate change. That seems to be the common context used in sources. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 19:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The estimable (and pseudonymous) Hob Gadling recently remarked, re Dr. Spencer: "His views are described below, and they are clearly in contradiction to the scientific consensus." So what? Dr. Spencer is an actual, practicing Climate Scientist, whose views aren't approved by Hob Gadling. Consensus (in this case) is largely political, and has been very successful in discouraging scientific skepticism, a sad state of affairs in my view. Bah. Pete Tillman ( talk) 02:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
discouraging scientific skepticismhere, it is the pro-Spencer faction. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Roy Spencer (meteorologist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 C-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. |
User:Hob Gadling moved Roy Spencer (scientist) to Roy Spencer (meteorologist). I do not agree that this is necessary, and effectively reverted. However, if others feel the same way as Hob Gadling, I think this is a good place to discuss why. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 01:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The only reason for moving the page would be to help readers who reach a disambiguation page - or who are typing in his name one character at a time in the search box. As soon as they see "(scientist)" they know it's the guy who writes about global warming and climate change. [If they see "(meteorologist)" the reader - not the graduate-degree-holding contributors who frequent talk pages like this, but the average reader - might think it's just the TV weatherman who presents the forecast.]
Let's think about public perception and keep our focus on helping the reader. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Roy Spencer (scientist). 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Roy Spencer (scientist). 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
[1] I don't see how this is an improvement. Now we are just echoing his pseudoscientific beliefs without any hint from mainstream sources that what he says is bullshit, making the section WP:PROFRINGE. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.-- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.We're not discussing the mainstream discourse, we're discussing their views on something that has broadly discussed in independent sources.
In TCS Daily, Spencer embraced the pseudoscience of intelligent designdoesn't belong anywhere in a Wikipedia biography. Not unless we are adopting George Orwell's 'Principles of Newspeak' as an instruction manual. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
This section in Spencer's BLP is about his viewsWhat Spencer is saying can be found on the talk.origins Index of Creationist Claims:
insert an introductory disclaimer per WP:BLPFRINGESo you do see what the actual problem is. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Jo-Jo A's edit was an improvement over two rudimentary sentences. I have seen nothing here to justify that opinion - writing nothing is still better than replicating contextless fringe ideas. See Talk:Thomas Sowell#Reversion of Sowell's climate change denial, Talk:Thomas Sowell/Archive 4#Climate Change Section and Talk:Alexander Gorodnitsky#His views on climate change. Your addition is an improvement over Jo-Jo A's edit, although it is unsourced and therefore vulnerable to WP:SYNTH. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
it seems you may just be arguing for the sake of arguing.No, I am arguing for the sake of Wikipedia pages not promoting climate change denial. A similar discussion is ongoing on Talk:Benny Peiser, and here are some more quotes from policies and guidelines that justify removing profringe quotes by profringe people from articles about those profringe people. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
the discussion on the talk page doesn't show a consensus to remove this
You need consensus to include things, not to remove them. There was no reason given why we should include Spencer's anti-science opinions without mainstream refutations. Since a link to the Peiser Talk page does not seem to be enough, I copy the reasoning from the Peiser Talk page here, replacing the key names and terms:
The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight.If we quote Spencer's ignorant opinions but no mainstream refutations of them, that means we do not include
all majority and significant-minority positions.
Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context. If we quote Spencer's ignorant opinions but no mainstream refutations of them, that means we do not locate them within a context.
Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. ID proponents are a non-negligible group outside of science but a tiny one within the relevant groups, the biologists. If we quote Spencer's ignorant opinions but no mainstream refutations of them, we
give disproportionate spaceto them.
While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community.If we quote Spencer's ignorant opinions but no mainstream refutations of them, we
obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community.
Did I jump through the bureaucratic hoop well enough? Do I have to repeat that every time I want to remove bullshit antiscience propaganda from an article? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
You are saying that we should not include all majority and significant-minority positions, violating WP:FRINGE.The positions we're discussing are the article subject's views. I'm not sure why providing his views in an article about him in a section outlining his views would need more positions?
You are saying that we should not locate claims derived from fringe theories within a context, violating WP:FRINGE... You are saying that we should give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints, violating WP:BLP.The claim is that the article subject believes something, not that the thing is true. This is covered in both primary and secondary sources, with the context provided by those sources.
You are saying that we should obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community, violating WP:NPOV.Not even sure where that comes from? The mainstream scientific views, as provided by secondary sources discussing the subject, are included. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
The mainstream scientific views, as provided by secondary sources discussing the subject, are included.For watchers: When I wrote the above, they were not. Please do not let yourself be misled. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Spencer holds contrarian views on climate change and intelligent design. These views are rejected by the scientific community.[13] at the top of the views section. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Spencer holds contrarian views on climate change and intelligent design, which still gets the point across and didn't necessitate removing a clearly notable section. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design. I was initially reticent to mention that, since it seems like an ad hominem. But I think it’s relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism.It's added now. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Arriving late to the party, I see basically two sources which pass my WP:FRIND detector: the Christian Science Monitor and Phil Plait. The primary stuff to Spencer himself shouldn't be included unless there are third-party independent citations to it that are relevant and, in that case, those sources need to be included for context. As I see it, the relevance is the claimed connection between global warming denialism and creationism as explored in the Monitor piece. Plait's criticism seems legitimate as Plait is fairly clearly an expert in discerning pseudoscience, creationism, etc. jps ( talk) 19:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Spencer is also on the advisory board of the Cornwall Alliance, a group with 'An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming' claiming that "Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory." The declaration also has a section on "What We Deny," and Spencer recently wrote in The Christian Postfrom The Guardian and also
In Huntsville, Christy began working with a NASA scientist, Roy Spencer. Spencer shared Christy’s religious orientation—he has written about rejecting the science of evolution in favor of the creationist theory known as intelligent design, and described himself as a “Bible-believing scientist“—and Christy’s skepticism over an issue that by the late 1980s was creating an upheaval in atmospheric science: climate change.from Inside Climate News. It may make more sense to combine the climate change and intelligent design views under one heading since they're normally discussed together, and it seems that his views on intelligent design color his views on climate change. That seems to be the common context used in sources. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 19:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The estimable (and pseudonymous) Hob Gadling recently remarked, re Dr. Spencer: "His views are described below, and they are clearly in contradiction to the scientific consensus." So what? Dr. Spencer is an actual, practicing Climate Scientist, whose views aren't approved by Hob Gadling. Consensus (in this case) is largely political, and has been very successful in discouraging scientific skepticism, a sad state of affairs in my view. Bah. Pete Tillman ( talk) 02:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
discouraging scientific skepticismhere, it is the pro-Spencer faction. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)