This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Patrick Moore (consultant) 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 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
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 following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This article, like most politically tinged articles on Wikipedia, is biased, and needs to be fixed. Whoever you people are who tolerate this bias are doing the world a radical disservice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.170.65 ( talk) 16:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
There have been back-and-forth edits related to the words "... having stated that increased carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is beneficial ..." Some edits -- ignoring IPs and ignoring another use of "falsely" later in the paragraph -- are: Scrooge and Marley CPA inserted on April 20, Thincat removed on April 20, Safrolic re-inserted on May 13, Doctorx0079 removed on June 28. JimRenge re-inserted on June 28. (Possibly I've missed something among edits by Hob Gadling and Joel B. Lewis.) I agree with the falsely-opposers but acknowledge that the falsely-supporters are the majority at the moment. Anybody else? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 18:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, a week has gone by and the two "falsely" claims in the lead are still referenced to sources that do not say his statements are false so I have added the two references suggested above by Hob Gadling. I'll ponder more on whether I think this is OK. On an editorial point (but not, I think, a BLP issue) I would remove all this editorialising from the lead and simply state there what the man has said with a general statement that his views are controversial. The body of the article is the place to put in specific criticism of his statements. Thincat ( talk) 09:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Someone tried to edit-war the falselies back out although the discussion is still ongoing. Since his fringe statements are refuted in the next sentence, I think the falselies are actually not needed if the dubiousness of the statements is made clear by using "to claim" instead of "to state". But of course, the clearly sourced on-lede non-lede falsely must stay. I edited to this effect. --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 14:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
the dubiousness of the statements is made clear by using "to claim" instead of "to state"I do not think, as a general principle, that using the word "claim" instead of "state" makes it clear that the statement is false. But your edits are fine with me. -- JBL ( talk) 14:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.That is exactly what it should do in this instance, as Moore's claim is just that: a claim. Regarding who edit-warred, I don't care. Look it up in the article history yourself. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Been a long time since I edited this page, but I too find the 'falsely' to be excessive editorializing and oppose the inclusion. I also oppose the presence of the Greenpeace's accusations at the lede, as I've argued before. Especially the first quote, which I think grossly disregards BLP policy. VdSV9• ♫ 00:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Peter Gulutzan. The section of Snopes that I thought was relevant comes at the end: "As Moore states, it is true that CO2 is a crucial building block of life that provides the raw material for plants to grow. This, in turn, provides animals with food and oxygen. However, such an observation, which you can find described in any middle-school science textbook, does not infringe upon the fundamental, physical truth that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet."
Is that not relevant to the sentence in the article?
Firefangledfeathers 18:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
"He has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change." The sentence should read: "He has claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change." There is also improper use of the reference attached to that statement as "proof" of this wrongness. I don't know how to edit it, but perhaps someone else can. 118.211.231.92 ( talk) 05:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
the authors have a clear bias against himThat is not something reasonably informed rational people would think. It is something disinformed people who already agree with Moore would think, or people who adhere to the dogma that one should never express a standpoint. Both are unlikely to learn anything, regardless of what we write, so their reaction does not matter much.
Reasonably informed rational peoplethink instead "yes, obviously that claim is false. I know that." They are aware that lots of information they get is redundant to their own knowledge, and that it is intended to inform less reasonably informed, less rational people. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
you think that most people don't know that climate change is supported by scientific evidenceI have no idea where you got that. You need to reexamine your logic.
If you think most people know that climate change is supported by evidence then you are being condescending to them.I already said that I never said I think that:
I have no idea where you got that. You need to reexamine your logic.I made not even one statement about how popular those positions are. So, enough with the strawman arguments already. But even if I had said that, the logic that followed your strawman is twice invalid: there is no reason why opinions about popularity of opinions are "condescending", and even if they were, opinions are (or should be) based on good reasoning and not on considerations about whether people will think them "condescending".
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Patrick Moore (consultant) 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 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
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 following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This article, like most politically tinged articles on Wikipedia, is biased, and needs to be fixed. Whoever you people are who tolerate this bias are doing the world a radical disservice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.170.65 ( talk) 16:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
There have been back-and-forth edits related to the words "... having stated that increased carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is beneficial ..." Some edits -- ignoring IPs and ignoring another use of "falsely" later in the paragraph -- are: Scrooge and Marley CPA inserted on April 20, Thincat removed on April 20, Safrolic re-inserted on May 13, Doctorx0079 removed on June 28. JimRenge re-inserted on June 28. (Possibly I've missed something among edits by Hob Gadling and Joel B. Lewis.) I agree with the falsely-opposers but acknowledge that the falsely-supporters are the majority at the moment. Anybody else? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 18:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, a week has gone by and the two "falsely" claims in the lead are still referenced to sources that do not say his statements are false so I have added the two references suggested above by Hob Gadling. I'll ponder more on whether I think this is OK. On an editorial point (but not, I think, a BLP issue) I would remove all this editorialising from the lead and simply state there what the man has said with a general statement that his views are controversial. The body of the article is the place to put in specific criticism of his statements. Thincat ( talk) 09:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Someone tried to edit-war the falselies back out although the discussion is still ongoing. Since his fringe statements are refuted in the next sentence, I think the falselies are actually not needed if the dubiousness of the statements is made clear by using "to claim" instead of "to state". But of course, the clearly sourced on-lede non-lede falsely must stay. I edited to this effect. --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 14:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
the dubiousness of the statements is made clear by using "to claim" instead of "to state"I do not think, as a general principle, that using the word "claim" instead of "state" makes it clear that the statement is false. But your edits are fine with me. -- JBL ( talk) 14:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.That is exactly what it should do in this instance, as Moore's claim is just that: a claim. Regarding who edit-warred, I don't care. Look it up in the article history yourself. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Been a long time since I edited this page, but I too find the 'falsely' to be excessive editorializing and oppose the inclusion. I also oppose the presence of the Greenpeace's accusations at the lede, as I've argued before. Especially the first quote, which I think grossly disregards BLP policy. VdSV9• ♫ 00:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Peter Gulutzan. The section of Snopes that I thought was relevant comes at the end: "As Moore states, it is true that CO2 is a crucial building block of life that provides the raw material for plants to grow. This, in turn, provides animals with food and oxygen. However, such an observation, which you can find described in any middle-school science textbook, does not infringe upon the fundamental, physical truth that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet."
Is that not relevant to the sentence in the article?
Firefangledfeathers 18:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
"He has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change." The sentence should read: "He has claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change." There is also improper use of the reference attached to that statement as "proof" of this wrongness. I don't know how to edit it, but perhaps someone else can. 118.211.231.92 ( talk) 05:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
the authors have a clear bias against himThat is not something reasonably informed rational people would think. It is something disinformed people who already agree with Moore would think, or people who adhere to the dogma that one should never express a standpoint. Both are unlikely to learn anything, regardless of what we write, so their reaction does not matter much.
Reasonably informed rational peoplethink instead "yes, obviously that claim is false. I know that." They are aware that lots of information they get is redundant to their own knowledge, and that it is intended to inform less reasonably informed, less rational people. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
you think that most people don't know that climate change is supported by scientific evidenceI have no idea where you got that. You need to reexamine your logic.
If you think most people know that climate change is supported by evidence then you are being condescending to them.I already said that I never said I think that:
I have no idea where you got that. You need to reexamine your logic.I made not even one statement about how popular those positions are. So, enough with the strawman arguments already. But even if I had said that, the logic that followed your strawman is twice invalid: there is no reason why opinions about popularity of opinions are "condescending", and even if they were, opinions are (or should be) based on good reasoning and not on considerations about whether people will think them "condescending".