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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
16:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Of what possible relevance are the insults of lawyer-journalist Jeffrey Kluger to Koonin's "Views on climate science?" The addition of that material seems to be nothing more than a gratuitous attack on a living person.
The paragraph begins by saying that "Jeffry[sic] Klugor[sic] in Time called Koonin's piece disingenuous if not dishonest." Then the paragraph accuses Koonin of "simply used the old debating trick of setting up a strawman to knock down by misconstruing what climate scientists mean when they say the climate debate is 'settled.'..."
Then some other editor apparently stepped in to defend Koonin, writing, "However, Klugor[sic] misquotes Koonin in an attempt to discredit his comments..."
I don't think any of that belongs in this article. Koonin's views on climatology are notable. But the fact that someone (whose name neither Wikipedia editor could spell) disagrees with those views and criticized him for them, and the fact that other people think that criticism is unfair, are not notable.
Note that Wikipedia's article on Kluger does not include criticism of him, such as the fact that the MRC's Paul Bremmer called Kluger's views on climate science "absurd."
Let's just delete the whole irrelevant paragraph about Kluger and his attack on Koonin. NCdave ( talk) 14:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There's a long historyProponents of pseudosience (like climate change denial) do that all the time - they talk about other cases where the outsider was right and pretend that the case in question is the same. It's called Galileo gambit. They do that because they have no good reasons for defending the case in question itself. If they did, they would have been able to convince the mainstream.
I've edited to rework the climate change material. I've removed some self-promoting and aggrieved language. I've tried to organize the material in a sensible way, using more subheadings. I've tried to clarify the scientific qualifications of some of the commentators.-- Fashionslide ( talk) 15:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC) The article listed a bunch of commentators by describing their positions, e.g., that they had a certain endowed chair at a certain university, or were affiliated with a certain think tank. This actually made the article hard to read and evaluate, because there was no indication as to whether the person had an academic degree or what their field was. I've edited to make the style more uniform, indicating in each case what the person's area of expertise is and sometimes giving a brief statement of their education or affiliation with a certain think tank.-- Fashionslide ( talk) 15:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC) The material about Koonin's suppoerters contained some less notable material: (1) material from a political columnist with no scientific qualifications, and (2) a description and quote of Koonin's aggrieved defense of himself on blogs and web sites. I've deleted this stuff.-- Fashionslide ( talk) 15:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
1) Does Koonin fall under WP:FRINGE? 2) Is he a climate change denier? 3) Should his rebuttals be included in this article?
Lastly, the removal from the article of positive third party reviews is exactly what Koonin is accused of, cherry picking.-- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 04:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
a crank who’s only taken seriously by far-right disinformation peddlers hungry for anything they can use to score political points. He’s just another denier trying to sell a book, but it is an opinion column.
I think Michael Bednarek is raising reasonable concerns. Also, which sources label Koonin as a "climate change denier"? This is mentioned in the lead but the body says nothing about it. As used this qualifies as a contentious claim so it needs to be well supported if it's going to be in the lead. Also, note this appears to be newly added only on 12 Nov [2]. If his reply to critics was carried by the WSJ we should mention it and link to it without covering any specific details. The length of the reply was too long but we shouldn't ignore that the reply happened. Springee ( talk) 14:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
THis guy was at Cal Tech etc. and some completely unknown(?) Wikipedia guy thinks he can diss his scientic reputation out of hand?-- 2001:9E8:564D:3900:3950:9A32:59A8:596F ( talk) 07:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Who appointed you? ‘Hob Gadling’. Are you honestly sure you are 100% impartial? Have a jolly good think now. No fibbing. You are completely impartial, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.243.239.188 ( talk) 21:07, 21 March 2024 (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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
16:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Of what possible relevance are the insults of lawyer-journalist Jeffrey Kluger to Koonin's "Views on climate science?" The addition of that material seems to be nothing more than a gratuitous attack on a living person.
The paragraph begins by saying that "Jeffry[sic] Klugor[sic] in Time called Koonin's piece disingenuous if not dishonest." Then the paragraph accuses Koonin of "simply used the old debating trick of setting up a strawman to knock down by misconstruing what climate scientists mean when they say the climate debate is 'settled.'..."
Then some other editor apparently stepped in to defend Koonin, writing, "However, Klugor[sic] misquotes Koonin in an attempt to discredit his comments..."
I don't think any of that belongs in this article. Koonin's views on climatology are notable. But the fact that someone (whose name neither Wikipedia editor could spell) disagrees with those views and criticized him for them, and the fact that other people think that criticism is unfair, are not notable.
Note that Wikipedia's article on Kluger does not include criticism of him, such as the fact that the MRC's Paul Bremmer called Kluger's views on climate science "absurd."
Let's just delete the whole irrelevant paragraph about Kluger and his attack on Koonin. NCdave ( talk) 14:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There's a long historyProponents of pseudosience (like climate change denial) do that all the time - they talk about other cases where the outsider was right and pretend that the case in question is the same. It's called Galileo gambit. They do that because they have no good reasons for defending the case in question itself. If they did, they would have been able to convince the mainstream.
I've edited to rework the climate change material. I've removed some self-promoting and aggrieved language. I've tried to organize the material in a sensible way, using more subheadings. I've tried to clarify the scientific qualifications of some of the commentators.-- Fashionslide ( talk) 15:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC) The article listed a bunch of commentators by describing their positions, e.g., that they had a certain endowed chair at a certain university, or were affiliated with a certain think tank. This actually made the article hard to read and evaluate, because there was no indication as to whether the person had an academic degree or what their field was. I've edited to make the style more uniform, indicating in each case what the person's area of expertise is and sometimes giving a brief statement of their education or affiliation with a certain think tank.-- Fashionslide ( talk) 15:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC) The material about Koonin's suppoerters contained some less notable material: (1) material from a political columnist with no scientific qualifications, and (2) a description and quote of Koonin's aggrieved defense of himself on blogs and web sites. I've deleted this stuff.-- Fashionslide ( talk) 15:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
1) Does Koonin fall under WP:FRINGE? 2) Is he a climate change denier? 3) Should his rebuttals be included in this article?
Lastly, the removal from the article of positive third party reviews is exactly what Koonin is accused of, cherry picking.-- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 04:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
a crank who’s only taken seriously by far-right disinformation peddlers hungry for anything they can use to score political points. He’s just another denier trying to sell a book, but it is an opinion column.
I think Michael Bednarek is raising reasonable concerns. Also, which sources label Koonin as a "climate change denier"? This is mentioned in the lead but the body says nothing about it. As used this qualifies as a contentious claim so it needs to be well supported if it's going to be in the lead. Also, note this appears to be newly added only on 12 Nov [2]. If his reply to critics was carried by the WSJ we should mention it and link to it without covering any specific details. The length of the reply was too long but we shouldn't ignore that the reply happened. Springee ( talk) 14:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
THis guy was at Cal Tech etc. and some completely unknown(?) Wikipedia guy thinks he can diss his scientic reputation out of hand?-- 2001:9E8:564D:3900:3950:9A32:59A8:596F ( talk) 07:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Who appointed you? ‘Hob Gadling’. Are you honestly sure you are 100% impartial? Have a jolly good think now. No fibbing. You are completely impartial, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.243.239.188 ( talk) 21:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)