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. |
Marknutley asked me to carry out a source analysis, as under the terms of his sanction, he is prevented from introducing any sources to any article in the CC area, broadly construed, without first checking with an experienced editor for review. Here is my review of the sources in the article as of this diff [1] (which precedes all of NW's changes today):
Staff directory link is NOT WORKING. Is this a temporary glitch to too much traffic as he has been in the news a bit or has the link changed??? Also, does anyone know if his position is appointed by the President and if so, which President? How long has he held this position? Thanks, Mylittlezach ( talk) 21:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
In short all of these sources are usable in the corret context. The article establishes notability of this person and somewhat on his credentials, but has not established him as a citeable expert yet. The article needs some polishing... get another editor to help if you can. I approve use of all the references given for the purposes I listed. I think the article seems to abide by those limits fairly well. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I took some stuff out [3].
Also, I'm not convinced that http://www.world-economics-journal.com/Contents/AuthorDetails.aspx?AID=418 is a RS for a biog; it looks very much like author-supplied material William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
As for being a "representative", that isn't IPCC. G says "delegate" which makes more sense [5] William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I looked on goggle it is a residential area not an office block, and that is beside the point read wp:dob it says no contact information for living persons the address were he works is contact information mark nutley ( talk) 22:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
So: MN: are you finally prepared to admit your error? In which case you need to apologise to those you've reverted, and restore the text you've deleted inappropriately from this page William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the PDF link; there is clear consensus that the removal was invalid; MN gracelessly refuses to do the right thing despite admitting error [8] William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be peacocking - He was one of 17 special advisors to E.U. Curtis Bohlen (the US representative) and Robert A. Reinstein (the alternative representative) at the UN FCCC [9] - not the or a representative. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 06:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
(see also the above section) It doesn't seem to be an official document - why is this (unverifiable) claim used? -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 04:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
(copied from SV talk; please continue the discussion here instead)
This edit-comment is rather incomprehensive - or at the very least demands an explanation. Why should i leave the article alone? I've done a heck of a lot of leg-work in verifying its content, and been very thorough in describing it on talk. Your reversion on the other hand is completely unexplained (except for the personal comment about me). -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 05:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The IPCC WGIII report from the First Assessment does not even list Goklany as an author for the Resource Use and Management chapter, much less "principal author." Page 161 of that section lists the authors as R. Pentland (Canada), J. Theys (France), and I. Abrol (India). On p. 204 the U.S.A. as a nation is listed as Rapporteur, with nine individual names given. Goklany's name is listed first but the names aren't listed in any obvious order, so I'm not sure what to make of that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 14:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Chris, you're replacing a common term (principal author) for an uncommon one (rapporteur), and replacing a secondary source (World Economic Journal [13]) with what appears to be a primary one ("Climate change: the IPCC response strategies," Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1991, p. 204). Can you explain? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 14:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a post by Goklany on wattsupwith that [14] that may be worth quoting from, since it is his views: What with the numerous panel reports on Climategate and the IPCC’s veracity, warmists may have solved our global warming problems: lots of whitewash, which should increase the earth’s albedo, and — voila — we’ll have cooling! and so on William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is tagged with "environmental skepticism". However, it seems that Goklany is not a skeptic about climate change, but about common proposals for responding to climate change (i.e. global warming is happening, but global well being would be helped by responding differently and diverting scarce resources into tackling poverty instead). Should the tag be there? VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 00:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Indur M. Goklany. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Paulmlieberman, KipHansen, and Borealfad:, can you discuss the recent "goks uncertainty language" and related edits rather than simply reverting? KipHansen, perhaps you can provide wording you're more comfortable with? tedder ( talk) 03:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
In his new position, Mr. Goklany "...embarked on a campaign that has inserted misleading language about climate change — including debunked claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial — into the agency’s scientific reports..."are a direct quote from an opinionated source without in-text attribution, violating WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. And it's selective -- look a bit further and you would find that Hiroko Tabuchi admits that one of her sources does not say that debunked wording was used:
The final language seemed “balanced enough, especially since it does mention potential adverse effects of warming on water resources,” wrote Ralph F. Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in an email. Nevertheless, Mr. Keeling — who was the lead author of the study cited by Mr. Goklany finding that more carbon dioxide helps plants use water more efficiently — also noted that the text “might have mentioned that warming may increase the water requirements for plant growth, which counters the CO2 impact on water-use efficiency.”Also, given that the article is only a few days old, I think WP:NOTNEWS might apply. In any case the insertion has been reverted on good-faith BLP grounds so I believe that this re-insertion without consensus may not have been in keeping with WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requirements. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
More carbon dioxide helps plants use water more efficientlyis not always true. Effects of climate change on plant biodiversity might be useful to see also. X1\ ( talk) 06:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
References
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. |
Marknutley asked me to carry out a source analysis, as under the terms of his sanction, he is prevented from introducing any sources to any article in the CC area, broadly construed, without first checking with an experienced editor for review. Here is my review of the sources in the article as of this diff [1] (which precedes all of NW's changes today):
Staff directory link is NOT WORKING. Is this a temporary glitch to too much traffic as he has been in the news a bit or has the link changed??? Also, does anyone know if his position is appointed by the President and if so, which President? How long has he held this position? Thanks, Mylittlezach ( talk) 21:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
In short all of these sources are usable in the corret context. The article establishes notability of this person and somewhat on his credentials, but has not established him as a citeable expert yet. The article needs some polishing... get another editor to help if you can. I approve use of all the references given for the purposes I listed. I think the article seems to abide by those limits fairly well. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I took some stuff out [3].
Also, I'm not convinced that http://www.world-economics-journal.com/Contents/AuthorDetails.aspx?AID=418 is a RS for a biog; it looks very much like author-supplied material William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
As for being a "representative", that isn't IPCC. G says "delegate" which makes more sense [5] William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I looked on goggle it is a residential area not an office block, and that is beside the point read wp:dob it says no contact information for living persons the address were he works is contact information mark nutley ( talk) 22:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
So: MN: are you finally prepared to admit your error? In which case you need to apologise to those you've reverted, and restore the text you've deleted inappropriately from this page William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the PDF link; there is clear consensus that the removal was invalid; MN gracelessly refuses to do the right thing despite admitting error [8] William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be peacocking - He was one of 17 special advisors to E.U. Curtis Bohlen (the US representative) and Robert A. Reinstein (the alternative representative) at the UN FCCC [9] - not the or a representative. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 06:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
(see also the above section) It doesn't seem to be an official document - why is this (unverifiable) claim used? -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 04:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
(copied from SV talk; please continue the discussion here instead)
This edit-comment is rather incomprehensive - or at the very least demands an explanation. Why should i leave the article alone? I've done a heck of a lot of leg-work in verifying its content, and been very thorough in describing it on talk. Your reversion on the other hand is completely unexplained (except for the personal comment about me). -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 05:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The IPCC WGIII report from the First Assessment does not even list Goklany as an author for the Resource Use and Management chapter, much less "principal author." Page 161 of that section lists the authors as R. Pentland (Canada), J. Theys (France), and I. Abrol (India). On p. 204 the U.S.A. as a nation is listed as Rapporteur, with nine individual names given. Goklany's name is listed first but the names aren't listed in any obvious order, so I'm not sure what to make of that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 14:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Chris, you're replacing a common term (principal author) for an uncommon one (rapporteur), and replacing a secondary source (World Economic Journal [13]) with what appears to be a primary one ("Climate change: the IPCC response strategies," Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1991, p. 204). Can you explain? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 14:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a post by Goklany on wattsupwith that [14] that may be worth quoting from, since it is his views: What with the numerous panel reports on Climategate and the IPCC’s veracity, warmists may have solved our global warming problems: lots of whitewash, which should increase the earth’s albedo, and — voila — we’ll have cooling! and so on William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is tagged with "environmental skepticism". However, it seems that Goklany is not a skeptic about climate change, but about common proposals for responding to climate change (i.e. global warming is happening, but global well being would be helped by responding differently and diverting scarce resources into tackling poverty instead). Should the tag be there? VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 00:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Indur M. Goklany. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Paulmlieberman, KipHansen, and Borealfad:, can you discuss the recent "goks uncertainty language" and related edits rather than simply reverting? KipHansen, perhaps you can provide wording you're more comfortable with? tedder ( talk) 03:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
In his new position, Mr. Goklany "...embarked on a campaign that has inserted misleading language about climate change — including debunked claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial — into the agency’s scientific reports..."are a direct quote from an opinionated source without in-text attribution, violating WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. And it's selective -- look a bit further and you would find that Hiroko Tabuchi admits that one of her sources does not say that debunked wording was used:
The final language seemed “balanced enough, especially since it does mention potential adverse effects of warming on water resources,” wrote Ralph F. Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in an email. Nevertheless, Mr. Keeling — who was the lead author of the study cited by Mr. Goklany finding that more carbon dioxide helps plants use water more efficiently — also noted that the text “might have mentioned that warming may increase the water requirements for plant growth, which counters the CO2 impact on water-use efficiency.”Also, given that the article is only a few days old, I think WP:NOTNEWS might apply. In any case the insertion has been reverted on good-faith BLP grounds so I believe that this re-insertion without consensus may not have been in keeping with WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requirements. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
More carbon dioxide helps plants use water more efficientlyis not always true. Effects of climate change on plant biodiversity might be useful to see also. X1\ ( talk) 06:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
References