This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I deleted one of the sources and revised the quote to "I'll take on any scientist in the field to talk about this...." The source I deleted converted "to talk about this" into an ellipsis. In my opinion, they did it to intentionally imply that he made a bet. It's obvious from the following source (still anti-Gray, so I doubt they would have likewise "fixed" the quote) that this is the correct quote. I've deleted the original quote source and moved up the following one, since their "massaging" of his words makes them automatically dubious.-- MikeJ9919 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I just added a couple of links to two recent news articles, both lengthy, but extensively researched and well-written.
Margie
15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
What's the best way to incorporate the 2 quotes above? -- Wing Nut 20:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following note
(note that warming is closer to 0.5 °C over the last 3 decades)
The note is incorrect he says quite clearly that he is speaking of sea surface warming, while the graph shows compiled warming from multiple sources, if you read the dataset, and find the sea surface warming chart you will see that he is quite correct in his quote. PPGMD 13:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
re: KimDabelsteinPetersen (→Stance on global warming - reinsert bet - its part of who and what Gray is. The information is sourced and attributable.)
Can we get a biographer in here (and over on Richard Lindzen's page too)? This silly "climate bet" thing has been re-entered in the biography of possibly the world's greatest hurricane expert -- and in this case (Kim - take note) the challenging bettor in not a scientist at all but a gadfly blogger who brags on his blog about aggrandizing himself by entering his little hobby results in Wikipedia and rants piteously about how he wants to be just like James Annan. The interesting thing about the story is only that Gray had the manners and good graces to talk to Brian Schmidt at all.
Insisting that this single-phone-call-from-a-total-stranger is "part of who and what Gray is" is pathetic. Can we get a real biographer in here - one without a drum to beat? KipHansen 04:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
13 April - I have re-deleted Brian Schmidt's comments about the non-bet on climate change. It clearly violates the policies on Biographies of Living Persons section as follows:
Reliable Sources "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception."
It is based on a Brian Schmidt's own report of a single private telephone conversation that is said to have taken place in November 2005. The report appears in Brian Schmidt's blog. Brian Schmidt's blog reveals that he is intentionally challenging famous climate scientists (whose views differ from his own) to "bets" to embarrass them. No one Brain has "contacted" has been willing to make a bet with him. [2]
This entry further violates the policies on NPOV - BIAS - Scientific "Scientific: favoring a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason." (In this case, non-favoring ;-)
If this section is again re-inserted, I will request Page Protection for this page on the basis that editors with personal bias are attempting to hijack this biography based on their personal views about climate change.
KipHansen 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As per above, I have officially requested Page Protection on this page.
KipHansen 17:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The statement about the bet has to go. Gray's declaration of willingness to "take on" any scientist is clearly an invitation to debate. To respond with a proposal to bet is disrespectful and irrelevant. The juxtaposition of the report of Gray's ignoring the bet proposal with the report of his challenge to debate only serves to cast doubt on the sincerity of the latter. This is a cheap shot, and arguable defamatory. A scientist who declares willingness to debate with anyone is under no obligation to accept bets, and his refusal to do so should not be used in WP (or elsewhere) to cast doubt on his integrity. -- Nasorenga 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I have again removed the line about Brian Schmidt's phone call to Bill Gray, based on the following policies regarding Biographies of Living Persons.
The sourced material clearly violates:
Reliable Sources
"Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs SHOULD NEVER BE USED, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception."
Bias
NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. Scientific:
favoring [ or the reverse ] a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason
A Wiki editor MUST:
"Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material
EDITORS SHOULD REMOVE ANY CONTENTIOUS MATERIAL ABOUT LIVING PERSONS THAT is unsourced, relies upon sources that DO NOT MEET STANDARDS SPECIFIED IN WIKIPEDIA:ATTRIBUTION, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. EDITORS WHO RE-INSERT THE MATERIAL MAY BE WARNED AND BLOCKED."
The "bet" piece violates the following:
"Biased or malicious content
Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article
specifically." Further, the phrase "like fellow skeptic Richard Lindzen," is entirely irrelevant to Gray's biogrpahy, and violates:
"Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association."
(nb: Brian Schmidt did not contact Richard Lindzen. Whatever Dr. Lindzen's reasons may have been for not placing a bet with some other person about a related subject, including this comment is Gray's biography is improper. Its inclusion shows the clear attempt to insert POV judgments.)
Further, I have asked that a Biography Administrator look at this page to prevent further vandalism of this sort.
Editors who insist on re-inserting the section are in danger of being warned or blocked per the above policy.
KipHansen 19:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Note to Administrator: The section "Gray also stated, "I'll take on any scientist in this field to talk about this, I predict that in 5 to 8 years the globe will begin to cool". [4]" violates allof the same Policies stated above. The "source" is a critics attack page in which reports that "if you listen to the video" of Gray's testimony to Congress, you will hear Gray make this statement. It should be deleted unless it can be found in the Congressional Record or other "Reliable Source".
KipHansen 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The prot req has been declined, of course
William M. Connolley
21:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
To all concerned, and hopefully some Administrators from the Biography Project---
I simply insert below my discussion with Mr. Connolley from his Talk page about the above. Personally, I think that either he has gross mis-understandings about WP of all sorts or simply choses to mis-apply them. I leave this biography in your tender care as well as what to do about Mr. Connolley.
My apology to you
Mr Connolley - First please accept my apology for using the phrase "POV editor" in regards to yourself. I was unaware of how offensive it is considered in wiki-speak. Second, Kim D. Petersen [25] has informed me that you are a WP:RS yourself, in the field of climate science, and auburnpilot [26] has informed me that you are, in fact, a Wkkipedia Administrator. Please excuse my "ignorant newbie" errors regarding this matter. So that I don't embarrass myself again in the same way, could you please explain to me here, in this less public forum, exactly how this bit --
When contacted, like fellow skeptic Richard Lindzen, he refused to accept any bets as to whether temperatures would drop, even bets that survive the bettors' lifespan by being given to a charitable foundation. (In Gray's case, he stated that as a man in his seventies, he did not want to make bets that exceeded his expected lifespan.) [27]
From [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray ], the biography of Bill Gray, a living person
does not violate WP:BLP section on RS, or, what exception to the policy justifies its inclusion in contradiction of this policy?
Thus fully informed, I will happily publicly apologize to you on Bill Gray's page and publicly admit to being an "Ignorant Newbie".
I include the section to which I refer here, not because I think you are unfamiliar with it, but so that there will be no mistake about exactly which policy I refer to;
Reliable sources
Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Attribution, and could lead to libel claims.
Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception.
Thank you for taking time to address this with me, KipHansen 19:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Connolley; Thank you, that seems to clear that up. I didn't even know that a Wikipedia Administrator could designate another individual as a "reliable source".
One more little point I'd like to clear up regarding this post. Its about what appeared to me to be a violation of the WP on "No Original Research".
In this case, a chap named Brian Schmidt makes a private personal phone call to Dr. Gray and then records his impressions of the phone call on his personal blog site. Brian then edits the Wiki Biography of Dr. William M. Gray (a living person)[ http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-fun-wikipedia-edits.html ] to include his report of the phone call, and links to his personal blog.
Can you explain to me how this does not violate WP:No Original Research or what exception to the policy justifies its inclusion in contradiction of this policy?
Thanks again, KipHansen 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
KipHansen 23:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the text about the bet based on reasons that I have outlined above. However, I admit that I did not look at the edit history or at this talk page first. If I had, I would have realized that there was an ongoing revert war over this text. It was not my intent to jump into an edit war. I think KipHansen has a point and I would urge WMC and KDP to reconsider their positions.
-- Richard 20:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Richard - Annann and Connolley are WP:RS - As for Schmidt i have no opinion (WMC seems to think that he is reliable) so far so good. The main issue that Kip raises about the bet is that he considers it defamatory - i fail to see this - Gray's objections to the bet sounds reasonable to me (age). If you remove Schmidt then the betting would stand alone without closure - and no rationale by Gray (which imho is worse). Betting on science issues is not uncommon and have been widely documented. -- Kim D. Petersen 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
(moving indents back to the margin - getting too deep here - Kip )
Dear All -
Brian Schmidt has agreed not to revert removal of his addition of the reasons for "Gray's refusal to bet".
This leaves only Annan's assertion that Gray has refused to bet. Leaving aside all the questions of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OO, and WP:BLS, let's examine the facts. The only thing Annan says is "I emailed him [ Bill Gray ] some time [sic] asking if he will back up this statement with a bet. William Connolley and Brian Schmidt at least have done the same. None of us (to my knowledge) has had the courtesy of a reply."
So, what do we have as a factual basis, verifiable or not? One 'not famous' scientist 'says' he emailed Dr. Gray, world famous scientist, with some sort of request that Gray place a bet with him [Annan], a total stranger, about future global warming/climate change. Annan says he received no answer.
We have no reason to doubt James Annan - this is what I, personally, would have expected.
Connolley, per above, says "I mailed Gray and got no reply (or so JA says; it was a while ago)". He is no longer certain he did actually email Gray.
So, Schmidt is out, Connolley is out, leaving only Annan.
Annan's "evidence" - a tongue-in-cheek paraphrase here, with advanced apology - "I emailed the very famous and venerable Dr. Bill Gray, demanding/requesting/asking [we don't and can't know - Kip] that he bet me about global warming/climate change and he didn't answer."
Apparently, Dr. Gray's email application has a 'delete' button, just like mine. I use mine to delete crank emails, unsolicited business proposals, offers of loans, and would use it if I got an email from a stranger asking me to place bets on the Second Coming.
Net effects:
1. If Brian Schmidt really did get to talk to the famous Dr. Bill Gray (and reportedly had a pleasant chat) - nice...we wish all famous scientists were this gracious with strangers who call them with odd proposals. Brian should write this in his blog -- oh, he already did. Well, that's done then.
2. Connolley has to be left out - he can't remember for sure.
3. Annan seems to have not received a reply to an email he sent to a famous busy scientist. A not unexpected result. So, that should be done too. Not receiving an email reply from a celebrity may have been a disappointment to James, but it hardly calls for entering the affair in the subjects encyclopedia biography.
So, can we just delete this bet thing and be done with it? What do you all think?
KipHansen 19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
James Annan [link to his Wiki] claims [ http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/11/bill-gray-wont-bet-on-cooling.html ] to have emailed Dr. Gray in 2005 asking him to bet on future global warming. Annan says he did not receive a reply.
Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject.
Per a sidebar conversation with Kip, I've changed "refused to accept" to "declined to accept." I think the words are synonymous while Kip thinks there's a big difference. While I don't agree with him, I see no reason to be in a conflict over this. I assume this raises no COI since it's not about what's cited in the article.
And for what it's worth, James Annan's statement on his website that I had also emailed Gray offering him bets is an accurate statement. Brian A Schmidt 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone posted a plea to Wikipedia:Third opinion, so here I am. In my opinion, the issues of a bet offered, and whose blog can be cited as verification, are completely irrelevant to an encyclopedia article, and should be expunged. When I read the article, those sentences offer no value.
I would delete these sentences:
In his blog, James Annan claims that he, William Connolley, and Brian Schmidt have made e-mailed Gray requesting that he back up his assertions with a bet. According to Annan, Gray has failed to respond to any of these requests.[4] Brian Schmidt reports that, when contacted by phone, Gray declined to accept any bets as to whether temperatures would drop on the grounds that such a long-term debt wasn't practical for a man in his seventies. He declined to make the bet even using a charitable foundation as a proxy. [5]
and replace them with something like this:
To date, Gray has given no indication that he has agreed to a debate
That's my opinion. If you really want to reference the blogs as evidence a bet or debate was offered, append to my suggested sentence: despite claims that a debate or bet was offered [4][5]. But don't go into detail about the back-and-forth in this article! - Amatulic 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I have rewritten this section to make the text more precisely describe what the sources say.
I still think we have a problem using the blogs of Annan and Schmidt as reliable sources because the critical piece of Wikipedia's reliable source policy is that the source must have gone through some sort of formal publishing process (i.e. review by someone else prior to publication). AFAIK, both blogs fail this test. However, given Kim's refusal to concede this point, it will take further steps in the dispute resolution process before we can resolve this issue.
In the meantime, I have reworded the article so that the article text matches what is said in the blogs.
I have also switched to the </ref> citation style.
-- Richard 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Note on above - I had to use [4] for this. This leads to a "free preview" summary page of the original archived LA Times article, and does not give the full text. One must PAY to view the full text. The preview does include the quote used.
Any objections to this cite?
KipHansen 00:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Bill Gray "may be the world’s most famous hurricane expert. More than two decades ago, as professor of atmospheric science and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, he pioneered the science of hurricane forecasting" [ http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/discover-dialogue ] </blockquote]
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:William M. Gray/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Too much attention is paid to his stance in global warming, and not enough on the rest of his life. It also needs considerable referencing, and a good copyedit for style. Tito xd( ?!?) 04:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 04:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I deleted one of the sources and revised the quote to "I'll take on any scientist in the field to talk about this...." The source I deleted converted "to talk about this" into an ellipsis. In my opinion, they did it to intentionally imply that he made a bet. It's obvious from the following source (still anti-Gray, so I doubt they would have likewise "fixed" the quote) that this is the correct quote. I've deleted the original quote source and moved up the following one, since their "massaging" of his words makes them automatically dubious.-- MikeJ9919 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I just added a couple of links to two recent news articles, both lengthy, but extensively researched and well-written.
Margie
15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
What's the best way to incorporate the 2 quotes above? -- Wing Nut 20:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following note
(note that warming is closer to 0.5 °C over the last 3 decades)
The note is incorrect he says quite clearly that he is speaking of sea surface warming, while the graph shows compiled warming from multiple sources, if you read the dataset, and find the sea surface warming chart you will see that he is quite correct in his quote. PPGMD 13:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
re: KimDabelsteinPetersen (→Stance on global warming - reinsert bet - its part of who and what Gray is. The information is sourced and attributable.)
Can we get a biographer in here (and over on Richard Lindzen's page too)? This silly "climate bet" thing has been re-entered in the biography of possibly the world's greatest hurricane expert -- and in this case (Kim - take note) the challenging bettor in not a scientist at all but a gadfly blogger who brags on his blog about aggrandizing himself by entering his little hobby results in Wikipedia and rants piteously about how he wants to be just like James Annan. The interesting thing about the story is only that Gray had the manners and good graces to talk to Brian Schmidt at all.
Insisting that this single-phone-call-from-a-total-stranger is "part of who and what Gray is" is pathetic. Can we get a real biographer in here - one without a drum to beat? KipHansen 04:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
13 April - I have re-deleted Brian Schmidt's comments about the non-bet on climate change. It clearly violates the policies on Biographies of Living Persons section as follows:
Reliable Sources "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception."
It is based on a Brian Schmidt's own report of a single private telephone conversation that is said to have taken place in November 2005. The report appears in Brian Schmidt's blog. Brian Schmidt's blog reveals that he is intentionally challenging famous climate scientists (whose views differ from his own) to "bets" to embarrass them. No one Brain has "contacted" has been willing to make a bet with him. [2]
This entry further violates the policies on NPOV - BIAS - Scientific "Scientific: favoring a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason." (In this case, non-favoring ;-)
If this section is again re-inserted, I will request Page Protection for this page on the basis that editors with personal bias are attempting to hijack this biography based on their personal views about climate change.
KipHansen 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As per above, I have officially requested Page Protection on this page.
KipHansen 17:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The statement about the bet has to go. Gray's declaration of willingness to "take on" any scientist is clearly an invitation to debate. To respond with a proposal to bet is disrespectful and irrelevant. The juxtaposition of the report of Gray's ignoring the bet proposal with the report of his challenge to debate only serves to cast doubt on the sincerity of the latter. This is a cheap shot, and arguable defamatory. A scientist who declares willingness to debate with anyone is under no obligation to accept bets, and his refusal to do so should not be used in WP (or elsewhere) to cast doubt on his integrity. -- Nasorenga 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I have again removed the line about Brian Schmidt's phone call to Bill Gray, based on the following policies regarding Biographies of Living Persons.
The sourced material clearly violates:
Reliable Sources
"Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs SHOULD NEVER BE USED, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception."
Bias
NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. Scientific:
favoring [ or the reverse ] a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason
A Wiki editor MUST:
"Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material
EDITORS SHOULD REMOVE ANY CONTENTIOUS MATERIAL ABOUT LIVING PERSONS THAT is unsourced, relies upon sources that DO NOT MEET STANDARDS SPECIFIED IN WIKIPEDIA:ATTRIBUTION, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. EDITORS WHO RE-INSERT THE MATERIAL MAY BE WARNED AND BLOCKED."
The "bet" piece violates the following:
"Biased or malicious content
Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article
specifically." Further, the phrase "like fellow skeptic Richard Lindzen," is entirely irrelevant to Gray's biogrpahy, and violates:
"Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association."
(nb: Brian Schmidt did not contact Richard Lindzen. Whatever Dr. Lindzen's reasons may have been for not placing a bet with some other person about a related subject, including this comment is Gray's biography is improper. Its inclusion shows the clear attempt to insert POV judgments.)
Further, I have asked that a Biography Administrator look at this page to prevent further vandalism of this sort.
Editors who insist on re-inserting the section are in danger of being warned or blocked per the above policy.
KipHansen 19:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Note to Administrator: The section "Gray also stated, "I'll take on any scientist in this field to talk about this, I predict that in 5 to 8 years the globe will begin to cool". [4]" violates allof the same Policies stated above. The "source" is a critics attack page in which reports that "if you listen to the video" of Gray's testimony to Congress, you will hear Gray make this statement. It should be deleted unless it can be found in the Congressional Record or other "Reliable Source".
KipHansen 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The prot req has been declined, of course
William M. Connolley
21:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
To all concerned, and hopefully some Administrators from the Biography Project---
I simply insert below my discussion with Mr. Connolley from his Talk page about the above. Personally, I think that either he has gross mis-understandings about WP of all sorts or simply choses to mis-apply them. I leave this biography in your tender care as well as what to do about Mr. Connolley.
My apology to you
Mr Connolley - First please accept my apology for using the phrase "POV editor" in regards to yourself. I was unaware of how offensive it is considered in wiki-speak. Second, Kim D. Petersen [25] has informed me that you are a WP:RS yourself, in the field of climate science, and auburnpilot [26] has informed me that you are, in fact, a Wkkipedia Administrator. Please excuse my "ignorant newbie" errors regarding this matter. So that I don't embarrass myself again in the same way, could you please explain to me here, in this less public forum, exactly how this bit --
When contacted, like fellow skeptic Richard Lindzen, he refused to accept any bets as to whether temperatures would drop, even bets that survive the bettors' lifespan by being given to a charitable foundation. (In Gray's case, he stated that as a man in his seventies, he did not want to make bets that exceeded his expected lifespan.) [27]
From [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray ], the biography of Bill Gray, a living person
does not violate WP:BLP section on RS, or, what exception to the policy justifies its inclusion in contradiction of this policy?
Thus fully informed, I will happily publicly apologize to you on Bill Gray's page and publicly admit to being an "Ignorant Newbie".
I include the section to which I refer here, not because I think you are unfamiliar with it, but so that there will be no mistake about exactly which policy I refer to;
Reliable sources
Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Attribution, and could lead to libel claims.
Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception.
Thank you for taking time to address this with me, KipHansen 19:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Connolley; Thank you, that seems to clear that up. I didn't even know that a Wikipedia Administrator could designate another individual as a "reliable source".
One more little point I'd like to clear up regarding this post. Its about what appeared to me to be a violation of the WP on "No Original Research".
In this case, a chap named Brian Schmidt makes a private personal phone call to Dr. Gray and then records his impressions of the phone call on his personal blog site. Brian then edits the Wiki Biography of Dr. William M. Gray (a living person)[ http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-fun-wikipedia-edits.html ] to include his report of the phone call, and links to his personal blog.
Can you explain to me how this does not violate WP:No Original Research or what exception to the policy justifies its inclusion in contradiction of this policy?
Thanks again, KipHansen 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
KipHansen 23:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the text about the bet based on reasons that I have outlined above. However, I admit that I did not look at the edit history or at this talk page first. If I had, I would have realized that there was an ongoing revert war over this text. It was not my intent to jump into an edit war. I think KipHansen has a point and I would urge WMC and KDP to reconsider their positions.
-- Richard 20:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Richard - Annann and Connolley are WP:RS - As for Schmidt i have no opinion (WMC seems to think that he is reliable) so far so good. The main issue that Kip raises about the bet is that he considers it defamatory - i fail to see this - Gray's objections to the bet sounds reasonable to me (age). If you remove Schmidt then the betting would stand alone without closure - and no rationale by Gray (which imho is worse). Betting on science issues is not uncommon and have been widely documented. -- Kim D. Petersen 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
(moving indents back to the margin - getting too deep here - Kip )
Dear All -
Brian Schmidt has agreed not to revert removal of his addition of the reasons for "Gray's refusal to bet".
This leaves only Annan's assertion that Gray has refused to bet. Leaving aside all the questions of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OO, and WP:BLS, let's examine the facts. The only thing Annan says is "I emailed him [ Bill Gray ] some time [sic] asking if he will back up this statement with a bet. William Connolley and Brian Schmidt at least have done the same. None of us (to my knowledge) has had the courtesy of a reply."
So, what do we have as a factual basis, verifiable or not? One 'not famous' scientist 'says' he emailed Dr. Gray, world famous scientist, with some sort of request that Gray place a bet with him [Annan], a total stranger, about future global warming/climate change. Annan says he received no answer.
We have no reason to doubt James Annan - this is what I, personally, would have expected.
Connolley, per above, says "I mailed Gray and got no reply (or so JA says; it was a while ago)". He is no longer certain he did actually email Gray.
So, Schmidt is out, Connolley is out, leaving only Annan.
Annan's "evidence" - a tongue-in-cheek paraphrase here, with advanced apology - "I emailed the very famous and venerable Dr. Bill Gray, demanding/requesting/asking [we don't and can't know - Kip] that he bet me about global warming/climate change and he didn't answer."
Apparently, Dr. Gray's email application has a 'delete' button, just like mine. I use mine to delete crank emails, unsolicited business proposals, offers of loans, and would use it if I got an email from a stranger asking me to place bets on the Second Coming.
Net effects:
1. If Brian Schmidt really did get to talk to the famous Dr. Bill Gray (and reportedly had a pleasant chat) - nice...we wish all famous scientists were this gracious with strangers who call them with odd proposals. Brian should write this in his blog -- oh, he already did. Well, that's done then.
2. Connolley has to be left out - he can't remember for sure.
3. Annan seems to have not received a reply to an email he sent to a famous busy scientist. A not unexpected result. So, that should be done too. Not receiving an email reply from a celebrity may have been a disappointment to James, but it hardly calls for entering the affair in the subjects encyclopedia biography.
So, can we just delete this bet thing and be done with it? What do you all think?
KipHansen 19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
James Annan [link to his Wiki] claims [ http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/11/bill-gray-wont-bet-on-cooling.html ] to have emailed Dr. Gray in 2005 asking him to bet on future global warming. Annan says he did not receive a reply.
Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject.
Per a sidebar conversation with Kip, I've changed "refused to accept" to "declined to accept." I think the words are synonymous while Kip thinks there's a big difference. While I don't agree with him, I see no reason to be in a conflict over this. I assume this raises no COI since it's not about what's cited in the article.
And for what it's worth, James Annan's statement on his website that I had also emailed Gray offering him bets is an accurate statement. Brian A Schmidt 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone posted a plea to Wikipedia:Third opinion, so here I am. In my opinion, the issues of a bet offered, and whose blog can be cited as verification, are completely irrelevant to an encyclopedia article, and should be expunged. When I read the article, those sentences offer no value.
I would delete these sentences:
In his blog, James Annan claims that he, William Connolley, and Brian Schmidt have made e-mailed Gray requesting that he back up his assertions with a bet. According to Annan, Gray has failed to respond to any of these requests.[4] Brian Schmidt reports that, when contacted by phone, Gray declined to accept any bets as to whether temperatures would drop on the grounds that such a long-term debt wasn't practical for a man in his seventies. He declined to make the bet even using a charitable foundation as a proxy. [5]
and replace them with something like this:
To date, Gray has given no indication that he has agreed to a debate
That's my opinion. If you really want to reference the blogs as evidence a bet or debate was offered, append to my suggested sentence: despite claims that a debate or bet was offered [4][5]. But don't go into detail about the back-and-forth in this article! - Amatulic 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I have rewritten this section to make the text more precisely describe what the sources say.
I still think we have a problem using the blogs of Annan and Schmidt as reliable sources because the critical piece of Wikipedia's reliable source policy is that the source must have gone through some sort of formal publishing process (i.e. review by someone else prior to publication). AFAIK, both blogs fail this test. However, given Kim's refusal to concede this point, it will take further steps in the dispute resolution process before we can resolve this issue.
In the meantime, I have reworded the article so that the article text matches what is said in the blogs.
I have also switched to the </ref> citation style.
-- Richard 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Note on above - I had to use [4] for this. This leads to a "free preview" summary page of the original archived LA Times article, and does not give the full text. One must PAY to view the full text. The preview does include the quote used.
Any objections to this cite?
KipHansen 00:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Bill Gray "may be the world’s most famous hurricane expert. More than two decades ago, as professor of atmospheric science and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, he pioneered the science of hurricane forecasting" [ http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/discover-dialogue ] </blockquote]
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:William M. Gray/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Too much attention is paid to his stance in global warming, and not enough on the rest of his life. It also needs considerable referencing, and a good copyedit for style. Tito xd( ?!?) 04:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 04:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)