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 Stub-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. |
'Climate Science is settled' does not equal 'We may not have all the answers to what is occurring' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.228.219 ( talk) 08:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it's an offensive term. Have it removed from WikiPedia and it will no longer be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.208.132 ( talk) 11:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
all editors please remember if you disagree with content, it is not by that nature alone 'vandalism'. Changes made with no explanation should not override previous content. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.165.59.114 (
talk)
12:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
So let me get this right MoonDyne, you remove the factual information and then locked it down. Care to explain how that works? I will lodge a complaint against you. You side with the guys deleting content with no explanation. Shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.77.102 ( talk) 13:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent work MoonDyne! The article now no longer actually represents his opinion or reality! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mish 130 ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi MoonDyne,
I have one. Taking the lead from previous comments I offer the following. Climate Denialism is defined by Wikipedia as "Climate change denial is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance".
As the CSIRO head, would you agree that when he made his statement, he knew how that would be taken? As such it's valid to use the term. In fact it is news worthy. Great that it is included.
Why can he not be cited as such? Also I am not sure why you locked the topic. It appears from the history that valid statements were made and many users were deleting text. Why did you side with the 'deleting' side, and not with the side that had provided valid, verified information? It appears you've deleted their content?. Do you have any valid reason to discount those statements? Looking at the previous state of the article the source was Australian state owned media. I'd have thought that whilst government owned, it was valid? No? I think you've focused on his latest award and not his greater role. He is the head of the CSIRO, and a Carbon Tax is on the Australian national agenda. This makes his statements and the interpretation of them very important.
I ask again, why did you delete reference to them? Why did you delete reference to the fact that his statements are considered those of a 'climate change denier' in the current climate (pun not intended).
I understand you probably got upset with the multiple reversions, however the topic is important enough that it should be left online. Whilst I wouldn't say a complaint is warrented, I'd say that you should reconsider and open things back up.
Kind Regards, Mish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mish 130 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
You've completely interpreted what he said in your own regard. You've destroyed the article. Shame. The fact that you will take a statement and then ignore another wiki entry that clearly interprets it is disgraceful. Science is settled != we don't know everything. You ignore tha. I can only presume you have no logical education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mish 130 ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 25 January 2011 (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 Stub-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. |
'Climate Science is settled' does not equal 'We may not have all the answers to what is occurring' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.228.219 ( talk) 08:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it's an offensive term. Have it removed from WikiPedia and it will no longer be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.208.132 ( talk) 11:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
all editors please remember if you disagree with content, it is not by that nature alone 'vandalism'. Changes made with no explanation should not override previous content. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.165.59.114 (
talk)
12:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
So let me get this right MoonDyne, you remove the factual information and then locked it down. Care to explain how that works? I will lodge a complaint against you. You side with the guys deleting content with no explanation. Shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.77.102 ( talk) 13:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent work MoonDyne! The article now no longer actually represents his opinion or reality! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mish 130 ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi MoonDyne,
I have one. Taking the lead from previous comments I offer the following. Climate Denialism is defined by Wikipedia as "Climate change denial is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance".
As the CSIRO head, would you agree that when he made his statement, he knew how that would be taken? As such it's valid to use the term. In fact it is news worthy. Great that it is included.
Why can he not be cited as such? Also I am not sure why you locked the topic. It appears from the history that valid statements were made and many users were deleting text. Why did you side with the 'deleting' side, and not with the side that had provided valid, verified information? It appears you've deleted their content?. Do you have any valid reason to discount those statements? Looking at the previous state of the article the source was Australian state owned media. I'd have thought that whilst government owned, it was valid? No? I think you've focused on his latest award and not his greater role. He is the head of the CSIRO, and a Carbon Tax is on the Australian national agenda. This makes his statements and the interpretation of them very important.
I ask again, why did you delete reference to them? Why did you delete reference to the fact that his statements are considered those of a 'climate change denier' in the current climate (pun not intended).
I understand you probably got upset with the multiple reversions, however the topic is important enough that it should be left online. Whilst I wouldn't say a complaint is warrented, I'd say that you should reconsider and open things back up.
Kind Regards, Mish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mish 130 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
You've completely interpreted what he said in your own regard. You've destroyed the article. Shame. The fact that you will take a statement and then ignore another wiki entry that clearly interprets it is disgraceful. Science is settled != we don't know everything. You ignore tha. I can only presume you have no logical education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mish 130 ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)