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. |
After all that 97% study is widely regarded as a statistical crock. Greglocock ( talk) 01:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I find it impossible to believe that this is the complete, unedited talk page. Cook is a controversial climate activist and the SkS web site has drawn many complaints about its blog policy from which comments are deleted and even modified without informing the person who wrote the original comment. Perhaps something along those lines is going on here in this talk section. DrDelos ( talk) 00:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Peer reviewed is a bit of a low bar these days, given the reviewer stuffing that has been going on. However... %0 Journal Article %D 2013 %@ 0926-7220 %J Science & Education %R 10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 %T Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change %U http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 %I Springer Netherlands %8 2013-08-30 %A Legates, DavidR. %A Soon, Willie %A Briggs, WilliamM. %A Monckton of Brenchley, Christopher %P 1-20 %G English
I won't bother trying to defeat the hive mind by editing the article Greglocock ( talk) 02:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Why has my criticism of Skeptical Science, made in the entry, been censored with no apparent mention of the censorship? I expected someone to remove my edit but that person should've made it clear why they removed the edit. Skeptical Science claim to promote science but they deny the findings of international energy bodies w.r.t. the CO2 emissions of nuclear power. In particular: IPCC, IAEA, IEA. They are hypocrites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkPawelek ( talk • contribs) 08:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed the lead to reflect the reality. It is a liberal blog that promotes theories of future man made global warming. It is not prestigious or a reliable source of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.3.122 ( talk) 17:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I added a link to a negative review of this website from the blog ( https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/skeptical-science-website/). The link to the article was removed. If https://www.masterresource.org is an unreliable source, why is SkS not unreliable too? There is no balance in this article, when there is no space for negative reviews of this website SkS. DTMGO ( talk) 16:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to skip down to proposals to help, otherwise, read lengthy rationale below.
This article violates nearly every WP standard for an article, and has editors with possible agendas or COI who are intentionally removing (and passive aggressively harassing) anyone who attempts to remove these violations or clear up the article. It currently violates WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:PROMOTION, WP:CITE, WP:RS, and likely WP:SOCKPUPPET (which alludes to but doesn't explicitly violate WP:OR). Unfortunately, in both the edit comments and on this talk page (and it's edits), most of these (particularly RS) have been quoted at others. By extension. in editing and talk, also violates WP:WL.
There is no standard at all set here. It begins in the lede and doesn't let up. Favorable op/eds and site material have been replaced, reverted back in, and continually added by generally the same core of people, while any attempts at proper edits have had RS thrown back at them. Unfavorable op/eds with similar or better scrutiny have been removed, for "RS" or "vandalism".
Out of 28 sources, 15+ are Cook's words or own site. 7+ are favorable reviews of the site, some which don't include Wiki article assertions. The remaining are the only acceptable sources, because they specifically note origins, policy, and/or creation of the site. This giant, waving, red promotional banner is unacceptable.
There is a massive amount of vague wording, "primarily", "mostly", "may be", "mainly", et al. These are all subjective comments and are rife in the article. One or two would be understandable to describe the site. These quantifiers are being used to describe everything from the creation, application, function, development, use and content.
In addition, another conflict occurs with "trained as a solar physicist", when Cook has had no formal training, education or employment other than a "year of study" post graduation ( https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/skeptical-science-founder-john-cook/) for physics alone, and he did not receive any degree or certification. This claim is dubious, since according to Postgraduate_education#Australia, twelve months would grant an additional certification of some sort, so if it's a year, would it not then have given him something tangible rather than "a year's study"? (Honest question, as I'm unfamiliar with Australian education system and can only refer to internet sourcing and this needs proper attribution and addressing in the article.) In addition, he never worked in this field (same source), let alone research in it. While his specific path should be part of this article, then it should be clarified that his degree is ONLY in physics, no additional branches, and is an undergraduate degree with no employer, study, or scientific research was completed by him in this field. To prevent confusion due to this murky situation, it should be clarified his recent doctorate is in psychology, not physics or other climatology related fields, since the ordering and description in the current article is confusing in this situation (intent by editors is obviously unclear, but I believe this jumbled chronology is intentional, in looking in past edits/reverts). Also, it should be added to his information, any various other positions he holds and where, such as https://communication.gmu.edu/people/jcook20 and https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/peoplepartners/. This will clarify his standing and list achievements and associations for his work. Ironically, the lede refers to the founding to his current employment site, but then shifts to SS to source claims of the sites purpose, systems, etc.
How has this been a years long effort and there is not looks into the editing process of this page for removal of talk entries repeatedly, without just cause, removal of valid sources per Wiki policy and turned this article into an advertisement which IS against policy. Many of the edits of existing sources directly link back to the Skeptic Science website. This is against Wiki promo standards for an entry. Because removals of sources back to Skeptical Science are consistently handled nearly immediately, and reverted with various false claims in the history, this article should be subject to WP:COI discussions. These reverts have continuously been done by a handful of editors with talk pages full of criticisms for incorrectly reading data, beginning pages that were not allowed, repeated edit wars on specific climate change/related topics. The specific WP:POV needs to be challenged. These flagrant and continuous removals without proper archive, removing discussions of community votes and falsely attributing "vandalism" tags to various scientific papers, notable scientists, etc. has completely nullified this entry. I'm particularly concerned by the attributions directly to Skeptical Science, as well as really vague comments like one word "flaws" being biased, but sources to the site referenced, "The site primarily gains the content for these articles from relevant peer reviewed scientific papers." from a purely promotional piece that made no such assertion, "praised for its straightforwardness" (without mentioning detractors, including from scientists whose work Cook has used to promote a particular article openly stating he incorrectly attributed or falsely made claims that their papers did not), sourced strictly to an op/ed. In citation violations, the Guardian article (which, normally, an RS) links right back to an article written by.... John Cook. Most of this entry is lifted directly from his personal attributions.
Lastly, the consistent removal of criticisms/controversies, removals and deletions (a few rare times, attempted to be hidden under the "minor edit" option) is a problem. Both in application doing it, and in it not existing. For example, there is very well sourced contradiction, from a doctor in Psychology, beating Cook by just 8 months. Quite literally, John Cook's education qualification equal as well as their education path (some school, then into IT, and back around to psychology). http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97 If he is not a peer, then nothing and no one is.
The sheer length of my own particular comment, detailing the many, many problems with this article (and the incredibly aggressive pro-editing) is astounding. I will not make any edits at this time, to hopefully discuss this with other editors to a preferred outcome that comes in compliance and doesn't violate NPOV for either "side". Otherwise, this article will require massive clean-up which may leave it as a stub. I prefer not to do this, as no one wins in such a case, but as the article stands, a good 85% of it is in non-compliance (in whole or in part) with Wiki standards.
In summary, here are my proposed changes to keep the article and why:
In summary, here are my proposed page moves to delete the article:
Please supply feedback to improve, properly edit and source the article. If no one else is willing to take this on, alone or in tandem, I will create a sandbox and display it to get consensus, considering the massive overhaul this article needs. Otherwise, the only other proposition is to merge this with another page that encompasses various research organizations within the AGW discussion itself, instead of a hollowed stub or a longer advertisement. Persons/editors with agendas, COI or OR need not apply. This needs to get to encyclopedic standards, not a "my side is more righter than your side's wronger". Just the facts, ma'am. Seola ( talk) 23:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Yae4: You mention some problems in your edit summaries. Could you specify them? The comment above from a year ago seems insufficient. It references sources deemed unreliable as well as sources that make no mention of Skeptical Science. Coming from an IP user with no history, and with no attached discussion from that time, request for a more specific statement seems reasonable.
Thanks! Jlevi ( talk) 14:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
See above for long lists of issues. Of about 28 sources, it has ~16 self-published, primary sources; 6 blog or re-publish of blog sources; 2 broken links fails verification; Leaves about 3 OK sources. Complaints against it exist, but are not included in the article. It's an advert. -- Yae4 ( talk) 14:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Why this should be tagged Primary Sources and Advert; list of primary and or questionable sources:
Multiple statements of "praise" are not attributed. Reception has not a single word of criticism, but criticism does exist; without searching, just taking from statements above... [1] [2] See quote by Richard Tol above. -- Yae4 ( talk) 17:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
There is no policy that says what the percentage should be in any given article. This is an editorial decision. If primary sources are being used to source controversial or arguable content, that's a problem. But the primary sources here are being used to source either straightforward attributed remarks or uncontroversial points. While Wikipedia editorial policy always prefers secondary sources, unless there is a specific problem with a primary source/article content identified, it does not seem reasonable to tag the article. Simply listing how many sources are primary sources is not what was intended for that particular cleanup tag. jps ( talk) 10:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
When I click the link in the infobox (from my Chromebook) I get:
http://88.255.216.16/landpage?op=1&ms=http://skepticalscience.com/ and a blank page
If I go directly I get:
This site can’t provide a secure connection www.skepticalscience.com sent an invalid response. Try running Connectivity Diagnostics. ERR_SSL_PROTOCOL_ERROR
Not sure Wikipedia should be linking to an insecure website Chidgk1 ( talk) 19:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I removed a citation to the website "mediabiasfactcheck.com" for two reasons:
-- Neutrality talk 13:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
As a member of the Skeptical Science team, I'd like to suggest some edits to the page as quite a lot has happened since the last dated activities mentioned in the article. Some is small stuff, some is more involved. I'm obviously not going to make updates myself but I thought I could suggest them here and leave it to you to decide what - if anything! - is worth including.
Small stuff I noticed
Other suggested updates
Other sources of information
Please let me know if you have any comments and/or questions! BaerbelW ( talk) 14:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
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. |
After all that 97% study is widely regarded as a statistical crock. Greglocock ( talk) 01:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I find it impossible to believe that this is the complete, unedited talk page. Cook is a controversial climate activist and the SkS web site has drawn many complaints about its blog policy from which comments are deleted and even modified without informing the person who wrote the original comment. Perhaps something along those lines is going on here in this talk section. DrDelos ( talk) 00:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Peer reviewed is a bit of a low bar these days, given the reviewer stuffing that has been going on. However... %0 Journal Article %D 2013 %@ 0926-7220 %J Science & Education %R 10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 %T Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change %U http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 %I Springer Netherlands %8 2013-08-30 %A Legates, DavidR. %A Soon, Willie %A Briggs, WilliamM. %A Monckton of Brenchley, Christopher %P 1-20 %G English
I won't bother trying to defeat the hive mind by editing the article Greglocock ( talk) 02:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Why has my criticism of Skeptical Science, made in the entry, been censored with no apparent mention of the censorship? I expected someone to remove my edit but that person should've made it clear why they removed the edit. Skeptical Science claim to promote science but they deny the findings of international energy bodies w.r.t. the CO2 emissions of nuclear power. In particular: IPCC, IAEA, IEA. They are hypocrites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkPawelek ( talk • contribs) 08:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed the lead to reflect the reality. It is a liberal blog that promotes theories of future man made global warming. It is not prestigious or a reliable source of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.3.122 ( talk) 17:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I added a link to a negative review of this website from the blog ( https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/skeptical-science-website/). The link to the article was removed. If https://www.masterresource.org is an unreliable source, why is SkS not unreliable too? There is no balance in this article, when there is no space for negative reviews of this website SkS. DTMGO ( talk) 16:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to skip down to proposals to help, otherwise, read lengthy rationale below.
This article violates nearly every WP standard for an article, and has editors with possible agendas or COI who are intentionally removing (and passive aggressively harassing) anyone who attempts to remove these violations or clear up the article. It currently violates WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:PROMOTION, WP:CITE, WP:RS, and likely WP:SOCKPUPPET (which alludes to but doesn't explicitly violate WP:OR). Unfortunately, in both the edit comments and on this talk page (and it's edits), most of these (particularly RS) have been quoted at others. By extension. in editing and talk, also violates WP:WL.
There is no standard at all set here. It begins in the lede and doesn't let up. Favorable op/eds and site material have been replaced, reverted back in, and continually added by generally the same core of people, while any attempts at proper edits have had RS thrown back at them. Unfavorable op/eds with similar or better scrutiny have been removed, for "RS" or "vandalism".
Out of 28 sources, 15+ are Cook's words or own site. 7+ are favorable reviews of the site, some which don't include Wiki article assertions. The remaining are the only acceptable sources, because they specifically note origins, policy, and/or creation of the site. This giant, waving, red promotional banner is unacceptable.
There is a massive amount of vague wording, "primarily", "mostly", "may be", "mainly", et al. These are all subjective comments and are rife in the article. One or two would be understandable to describe the site. These quantifiers are being used to describe everything from the creation, application, function, development, use and content.
In addition, another conflict occurs with "trained as a solar physicist", when Cook has had no formal training, education or employment other than a "year of study" post graduation ( https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/skeptical-science-founder-john-cook/) for physics alone, and he did not receive any degree or certification. This claim is dubious, since according to Postgraduate_education#Australia, twelve months would grant an additional certification of some sort, so if it's a year, would it not then have given him something tangible rather than "a year's study"? (Honest question, as I'm unfamiliar with Australian education system and can only refer to internet sourcing and this needs proper attribution and addressing in the article.) In addition, he never worked in this field (same source), let alone research in it. While his specific path should be part of this article, then it should be clarified that his degree is ONLY in physics, no additional branches, and is an undergraduate degree with no employer, study, or scientific research was completed by him in this field. To prevent confusion due to this murky situation, it should be clarified his recent doctorate is in psychology, not physics or other climatology related fields, since the ordering and description in the current article is confusing in this situation (intent by editors is obviously unclear, but I believe this jumbled chronology is intentional, in looking in past edits/reverts). Also, it should be added to his information, any various other positions he holds and where, such as https://communication.gmu.edu/people/jcook20 and https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/peoplepartners/. This will clarify his standing and list achievements and associations for his work. Ironically, the lede refers to the founding to his current employment site, but then shifts to SS to source claims of the sites purpose, systems, etc.
How has this been a years long effort and there is not looks into the editing process of this page for removal of talk entries repeatedly, without just cause, removal of valid sources per Wiki policy and turned this article into an advertisement which IS against policy. Many of the edits of existing sources directly link back to the Skeptic Science website. This is against Wiki promo standards for an entry. Because removals of sources back to Skeptical Science are consistently handled nearly immediately, and reverted with various false claims in the history, this article should be subject to WP:COI discussions. These reverts have continuously been done by a handful of editors with talk pages full of criticisms for incorrectly reading data, beginning pages that were not allowed, repeated edit wars on specific climate change/related topics. The specific WP:POV needs to be challenged. These flagrant and continuous removals without proper archive, removing discussions of community votes and falsely attributing "vandalism" tags to various scientific papers, notable scientists, etc. has completely nullified this entry. I'm particularly concerned by the attributions directly to Skeptical Science, as well as really vague comments like one word "flaws" being biased, but sources to the site referenced, "The site primarily gains the content for these articles from relevant peer reviewed scientific papers." from a purely promotional piece that made no such assertion, "praised for its straightforwardness" (without mentioning detractors, including from scientists whose work Cook has used to promote a particular article openly stating he incorrectly attributed or falsely made claims that their papers did not), sourced strictly to an op/ed. In citation violations, the Guardian article (which, normally, an RS) links right back to an article written by.... John Cook. Most of this entry is lifted directly from his personal attributions.
Lastly, the consistent removal of criticisms/controversies, removals and deletions (a few rare times, attempted to be hidden under the "minor edit" option) is a problem. Both in application doing it, and in it not existing. For example, there is very well sourced contradiction, from a doctor in Psychology, beating Cook by just 8 months. Quite literally, John Cook's education qualification equal as well as their education path (some school, then into IT, and back around to psychology). http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97 If he is not a peer, then nothing and no one is.
The sheer length of my own particular comment, detailing the many, many problems with this article (and the incredibly aggressive pro-editing) is astounding. I will not make any edits at this time, to hopefully discuss this with other editors to a preferred outcome that comes in compliance and doesn't violate NPOV for either "side". Otherwise, this article will require massive clean-up which may leave it as a stub. I prefer not to do this, as no one wins in such a case, but as the article stands, a good 85% of it is in non-compliance (in whole or in part) with Wiki standards.
In summary, here are my proposed changes to keep the article and why:
In summary, here are my proposed page moves to delete the article:
Please supply feedback to improve, properly edit and source the article. If no one else is willing to take this on, alone or in tandem, I will create a sandbox and display it to get consensus, considering the massive overhaul this article needs. Otherwise, the only other proposition is to merge this with another page that encompasses various research organizations within the AGW discussion itself, instead of a hollowed stub or a longer advertisement. Persons/editors with agendas, COI or OR need not apply. This needs to get to encyclopedic standards, not a "my side is more righter than your side's wronger". Just the facts, ma'am. Seola ( talk) 23:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Yae4: You mention some problems in your edit summaries. Could you specify them? The comment above from a year ago seems insufficient. It references sources deemed unreliable as well as sources that make no mention of Skeptical Science. Coming from an IP user with no history, and with no attached discussion from that time, request for a more specific statement seems reasonable.
Thanks! Jlevi ( talk) 14:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
See above for long lists of issues. Of about 28 sources, it has ~16 self-published, primary sources; 6 blog or re-publish of blog sources; 2 broken links fails verification; Leaves about 3 OK sources. Complaints against it exist, but are not included in the article. It's an advert. -- Yae4 ( talk) 14:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Why this should be tagged Primary Sources and Advert; list of primary and or questionable sources:
Multiple statements of "praise" are not attributed. Reception has not a single word of criticism, but criticism does exist; without searching, just taking from statements above... [1] [2] See quote by Richard Tol above. -- Yae4 ( talk) 17:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
There is no policy that says what the percentage should be in any given article. This is an editorial decision. If primary sources are being used to source controversial or arguable content, that's a problem. But the primary sources here are being used to source either straightforward attributed remarks or uncontroversial points. While Wikipedia editorial policy always prefers secondary sources, unless there is a specific problem with a primary source/article content identified, it does not seem reasonable to tag the article. Simply listing how many sources are primary sources is not what was intended for that particular cleanup tag. jps ( talk) 10:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
When I click the link in the infobox (from my Chromebook) I get:
http://88.255.216.16/landpage?op=1&ms=http://skepticalscience.com/ and a blank page
If I go directly I get:
This site can’t provide a secure connection www.skepticalscience.com sent an invalid response. Try running Connectivity Diagnostics. ERR_SSL_PROTOCOL_ERROR
Not sure Wikipedia should be linking to an insecure website Chidgk1 ( talk) 19:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I removed a citation to the website "mediabiasfactcheck.com" for two reasons:
-- Neutrality talk 13:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
As a member of the Skeptical Science team, I'd like to suggest some edits to the page as quite a lot has happened since the last dated activities mentioned in the article. Some is small stuff, some is more involved. I'm obviously not going to make updates myself but I thought I could suggest them here and leave it to you to decide what - if anything! - is worth including.
Small stuff I noticed
Other suggested updates
Other sources of information
Please let me know if you have any comments and/or questions! BaerbelW ( talk) 14:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)