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 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
Article: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article content: "Interest in such scientists has been increased by attempts to compile lists of dissenting scientists, including a minority report to the US Senate by Marc Morano, another by Arthur B. Robinson, which is often known as the Oregon Petition, and another by the Heartland Institute, all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds."
Ref: Steven Newton (2012-04-30). "Voices: Defending science: The link between creationism and climate change". EARTH Magazine. Retrieved 2014-04-20.
"Having failed to convince the scientific community of the credibility of their views, both creationists and climate change deniers have taken their case to the public in a way that distorts and misrepresents the nature of science."
"Take petitions, for example. Creationists maintain a “Dissent from Darwin” list of several hundred Ph.D.s who have signed a statement encouraging “careful examination of the evidence” for what is vaguely termed “Darwinian theory”; climate change deniers have the so-called Oregon Petition, with more than 31,000 signers endorsing a statement denying that there is any “convincing evidence” that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause “catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”"
"Such petitions convey the misleading impression that science is a popularity contest. Whether evolution and climate change are good science is, ultimately, a matter of evidence, not of who can amass more signatures. But that’s not the way deniers portray it."
The author is Steve Newton of NCSE( NCSE profile)
NSCE highlighted the article on their website.
Related discussions:
Discussion:
Simply, should the source demonstrating the viewpoint of National Center for Science Education be added to the other references of criticisms? (There is some question of the reference being a reliable source for NCSE's viewpoint that wasn't completely clarified in the RSN discussion). -- Ronz ( talk) 21:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
(There are no sources demonstrating the article's topic as defined by it's inclusion criteria is notable, but we're way off topic here.)
So NCSE's viewpoint, yes or no? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Author Jeanette Winterson killed a rabbit from her garden and ate it, then tweeted about it and received some blowback. The incident got a bit of coverage in the British press. A version of the story, sourced to the Daily Mail, has now been added and removed twice and then restored a third time. Does it belong in our article (per WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT) and if so, does the current version conform with WP:NPOV? Comments are invited at Talk:Jeanette Winterson#Rabbit stew. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Please go through the article Cheraman Juma Masjid and Talk:Cheraman Juma Masjid. There are 2 sides of story about the life of the last Chera king. An user removed the existing lines and added the other side. The user repeatedly deletes those well sourced lines and object to bring the article to WP:NPOV. Please look into and decide. Wasif ( talk) 09:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
An RFC is underway at Talk: Cold fusion concerning which of the WP:ARBPS categories is the NPOV characterization of experiments on cold fusion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, there are not unreasonable POV concerns regarding just about everybody involved on these pages. Uninvolved eyes are definitely welcome and probably needed. John Carter ( talk) 00:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just made a huge revert on the above page, which read like an advertorial for the company before I got to it. Unfortunately, the page is now not particularly good, but better than before I feel, and I don't have the wiki skillz to improve it further. I have commented on the (empty) Talk page about my edit. Thing is, I'm way outside my editing comfort zone, and a change like that in my areas of interest would set off all sorts of alarms. I believe that the editor I reverted probably has an undeclared COI, and is certainly a WP:SPA.
So, I suppose I really just want somebody to pat me on the back and say "It's OK Roxy, you did a good thing" or perhaps "Bad dog, Roxy, go to your kennel." Pretty please? - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 12:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This is to notify about a RfC, Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: When COMMONNAME depends on country, culture, or demography which involves a strong NPOV issue. Your input would be appreciated. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 10:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I have encountered chronic censorship from User:Bobrayner in the article Economic growth. The censorship is related to ideas that energy use and energy efficiency are important factors in economic growth, which is well supported by prominent economists, beginning with William Stanley Jevons, the father of neo-classical economics. This claim also comes from many economic historians. It is also the view of various energy agencies and engineering and technical societies, the U.S. Federal Reserve and others. There are numerous books and papers with data and models of energy and growth, some of which show much higher correlations than the simpler neo-classical models. Unfortunately this information gets deleted.
User:Bobrayner is sneaky (methodical, systematic deletion) and deceptive and does not keep his word. Objections to some of the information about energy having too much emphasis was addressed by having it in a separate article. User:Bobrayner had that articled deleted saying it could be handled in economic growth as the sole article. He then systematically had all of the information censored out of economic growth. I did considerable research and found extremely solid information and references and put this into the much improved article (not just about energy but many parts of the article) but the energy part is still under under attack. To date I have not seen User:Bobrayner show any understanding of the subject matter in his criticisms or cite any references to back up his POV. If he has any logical argument to back up his POV I'd like to hear it. Phmoreno ( talk) 02:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Phmoreno ( talk) 01:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
RE: Vandalism: You just deleted the content without any substantial discussion. If you had concerns about synthesis or original research, they should have been explained, citing the specific passages and your reasoning, on the Talk page. I am willing to correct any reasonable objections, but am not willing to listen to your discrediting reputable sources. Simply deleting content because you don't like it is RUDE! Phmoreno ( talk) 12:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Phmoreno ( talk) 03:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
RE: Luddite fallacy ( Technological unemployment) What are you talking about? I contributed practically nothing to this article except a little clean up because it was such a disaster. What happened is that another editor (a previous ally of yours) made such ignorant (of the subject matter) statements that he made a complete fool of himself and was scolded by a Wiki monitor (or whatever these people are called). I don't get involved with such people so I abandoned the article. Somebody else can deal with it. Moving back to your original statement, you're mentioning another article indicates a prejudice against me, especially since my major contributions to that article were on the Talk page. What's worse, you're confusing me with someone else. Phmoreno ( talk) 22:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Final thought RE Technological unemployment: You fail to appreciate how much I improved Automation after successfully getting Luddite fallacy moved to Technological unemployment so I cold work on Automation, which I basically wrote by myself. Technological unemployment is of little interest to me; however, it caused me to read a really good book. Phmoreno ( talk) 05:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I would invite you to take place in the RFC. It involves rather to include certain material which I think is important to keeping the article WP:NOV. Please take part here. 16:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
User:EllenCT has posted a non-neutral talk page section heading which she refuses to revise.
As EllenCT seems inclined to post an RFC/U about me, I have not revised the section heading, but bring this up here for community comment and action. (Hoping, of course, that the section heading be revised.) – S. Rich ( talk) 02:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see http://britishbeekeeping.com/ for the most recent details and some background information. EllenCT ( talk) 03:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The particular section has been moved and retitled with this edit. I am marking this thread as {{ Resolved}}. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to invite you to comment on a RfC/User conduct opened in this section, actually including more articles, but centred on Navarre. Your input is much appreciated. Iñaki LL ( talk) 07:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Carlstak is persistent in adding the line "The Institute received $5,000 in funding from Philip Morris in 1995." at The Independent Institute#Funding. TII is now a $2.4 million think tank and the source of this info re the donation is a thank you letter written by TII's president. Vidmastb had removed an earlier version ("The Institute has received funding from Philip Morris.") because of a bad link. SPECIFICO fixed the link and restored it here. I removed the line here with an edit summary re the small size (UNDUE) of the donation and primary source referencing. Carlstak reverted. I revised the sentence and tagged it as UNDUE here. I then opened a talk page thread on the UNDUE issue at Talk:The Independent Institute#Funding from Philip Morris. Specifico has agreed that the line is undue. MastCell does not disagree, but has provided references from secondary sources. Following their comments, I removed the line. Carlstak reverted, saying "use talk" even though the thread had been opened. I reverted, pointing out the thread & support for removal. Carlstak has revered again, without an edit summary. Carlstak has not participated in this thread, although he was involved in earlier discussions last year. I submit that Carlstak is POV-warring for this trivial bit of information. – S. Rich ( talk) 23:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
If a territory recently ceased to exist and/or a city recently changed its name, what name should we use in an article that discusses events before & after? My understanding of best practice was that we show the contemporary name and then, if there's a big difference or if it needs to be clarified, we parenthetically give the current name. Or something along those lines. However, this edit to Arsim Abazi's place of birth suggests otherwise. That article has two sources; one says he was born in Uroševac (ie. the placename at the time he was born), and one says he was born in Ferizaj (the placename now). bobrayner ( talk) 20:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
If there really is a guideline somewhere that says we should only use outdated placenames and not current ones, I would love to see it; since that guideline needs to be improved. Can you provide a link, please? Why do you insist that other editors must back down, and follow a rule which supports your preferred style, if you can't even link to the rule? It looks like you just made it up. bobrayner ( talk) 08:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The opinions (either way) of NPOV/N experts would be appreciated here : Talk:DynCorp#Neutrality_disputed_2
Courtesy notification. Thanks Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
At the moment our article claims categorically that al-Baghdad is Caliph, with some editors also using the title in the body of the article. The title is disputed even among Sunni Muslims, with at least one t Sunni Muslim scholar, Yusef al-Qaradawi quoted as stating “We look forward to the coming, as soon as possible, of the caliphate, But the declaration issued by the Islamic State is void under sharia and has dangerous consequences for the Sunnis in Iraq and for the revolt in Syria,” He said the declaration, and the nomination of al-Baghdadi as caliph, by a group “known for its atrocities and radical views” fail to meet strict conditions dictated by sharia law. The title of caliph, he said, can “only be given by the entire Muslim nation”, not by a single group." and The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, regarded by many to be the leading authority on Sunni Islamic thought, “believes that all those who are today speaking of an Islamic State are terrorists,” his representative, Sheikh Abbas Shuman, told AFP earlier this week" [3] Given this I believe that Wikipedia stating that he is Caliph is a violation of WP:NPOV. Dougweller ( talk) 10:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's a WP:cabal of users hell-bent in making sure acupuncture is completely discredited and made to look like quackery. All scientific evidence of mechanism of action or recent discoveries of meridians basis in science is quickly reverted and laughed at. I tried to start a NPOV discussion but I was told that "an NPOV tag for the entire article based on a single editors vague assertion is not appropriate." It's a hopeless situation. Perhaps an Rfc could help? - Technophant ( talk) 15:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want.I'm not sure where this comment goes best, but, since you haven't linked to your other complaint at either of the noticeboards, I suppose I'd better put it on both. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC).
Now from time to time, scientists sit down and read a bunch of research papers, and they think about it, and they write what we call "reviews", where they try to fit all the primary research together, into a story that makes sense. The scientist doing the review will generally pick up and cite the primary studies that are part of the story that is making sense. Generally, reviews do not go so far as saying things like "the paper by that guy — that paper is bunk. We are going to ignore it." Instead, they just ignore papers that turn out to be false leads. This is really important. Only egregiously bad papers are actually retracted; there are loads and loads of papers that draw conclusions that turned out not to be true, but that remain in the literature. People who are not experts in the field have no way of knowing which research papers have been left in the dust by the scientific community. These papers are not retracted nor are they tagged in any way. They just sit there, ignored.
Doesn't change the fact that it is essentially a self-publishing website with no formal peer-review process. The articles are not indexed in any major scientific databases and most importantly, the blog has a very respectable impact factor of, well....zero.
I attempted to put a npov-section tag on the section I'm most concerned about, Acupuncture#Scientific view on TCM theory, and it was reverted with edit summary "Rm. disruptive tagging." I had also tried to discuss this first on the talk page but I was ridiculed and the right to make the protected page request was denied for being not un-controversal. I moved the request to another section but it's been ignored. Could an un-involved editor please put the tag up for me?
Also, there's several editor telling me on the talk page that ALL edits must be done by consensus. That's not how Wikipedia works. This edit by @ User:Six words and this edit by @ User:Adjwilley stand out as being threatening. - - Technophant ( talk) 02:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There really seems to be a problem here. My edits are being reverted and being called "fringe". There's a major issue with the interpretation and application of WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. This debate is going on in myofascial meridians, acupuncture, referred itch, and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).
In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience it's decided that "1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."
Is it possible to reach a compromise that can permit fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy? - Technophant ( talk) 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
A Wikipedia editor started an NPOV inquiry into whether Gary Webb was "vindicated"? Talk:Gary_Webb#Vindicated.3F - The editor argues that the CIA internal report in the 1990s did not vindicate him. The article currently states that Webb was vindicated after the editor of the Los Angeles Times stated that the newspaper's attack on him was faulty and after something another newspaper published in the 2000s (I'll have to look)
This is an important topic so I encourage Wikipedians to give this their attention WhisperToMe ( talk) 09:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
LaRouche-related disputes are often messy. LaRouche's group seems to be in perpetual combat with other activist groups on both the left and the right. LaRouche typically accuses his opponents of being fascist or proto-fascist. Some of his nominally leftist opponents in turn call him fascist or proto-fascist, while his nominally rightist opponents call him socialist or communist. There have been edit wars in the past over whether to include these accusations and how much weight to give them. I think that the most reliable characterization of LaRouche comes from a recent article in the New York Times, which describes him as a "controversial activist" whose "views defy simple categorization."
The present dispute, which shows no signs of progress on the talk page ( Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Fursov redux), is over the section entitled Allegations of fascism, anti-Semitism, and racism, and specifically over whether to include this rebuttal quote. My view is that the commentator is notable, and his view should be included under NPOV. It may also help mitigate any BLP problems associated with this section. Input from uninvolved editors would be helpful, since the involved editors appear to be deadlocked. Joe Bodacious ( talk) 13:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I can see Writegeist's point. I think that including the portion about the scientific basis, without the slam on the "intellectuals", might be a suitable compromise. Joe Bodacious ( talk) 18:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is the new text I propose to add to the article: In response to King, historian Stanley G. Payne of the University of Wisconsin wrote in 1996 that the National Caucus of Labor Committees, a LaRouche-affiliated group, had "only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement", [1] while another historian, Andrei Fursov of the Moscow Institute for the Humanities, said that the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics. [2] Joe Bodacious ( talk) 22:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Once again, the text I propose to add to the article: In response to King, historian Stanley G. Payne of the University of Wisconsin wrote in 1996 that the National Caucus of Labor Committees, a LaRouche-affiliated group, had "only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement", [3] while another historian, Andrei Fursov of the Moscow Institute for the Humanities, said that the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics. [4] Are there any policy-based objections to this text? Joe Bodacious ( talk) 02:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
References
As an uninvolved party, based on the discussion here it appears to me that inclusion would give too much weight to a fringe viewpoint. Gamaliel ( talk) 16:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
From a cursory scan, I'm not sure this is written from a NPOV, but would like a second opinion, The talk page is worse. :( ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 20:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I have serious questions which I have raised on the talk page regarding whether the article adheres to WP:WTW and also about the broader neutrality of the article and also some expressed concerns regarding conduct matters. Additional input there would be very welcome. John Carter ( talk) 22:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
About eight months ago, while randomly looking up movies, I stumbled upon the article for Fisher Klingenstein Films (henceforth FKF). As you can see, the page reads like a news release. At the time, there had been much discussion on the talk page about how bad it was, with the creating editor, Nelsondenis248 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), repeatedly insisting on discussion, consensus, etc.
Being a brand-new editor, I thought I'd stretch my muscles by fixing it up. I spent an hour or two working on a trimmed-down version that removed the gobs and gobs of praise that made the page read so biased. As I noted on the talk page, I left one section relatively intact to demonstrate how poorly it was constructed, and suggested that the movie be split into its own page.
Sarason ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) proceeded to 'restore' the old version of the article and scolded me on the talk page. I responded by placing a 'news release' tag on the article page and hoping someone else would come along and complete what I had failed. At the time, I was unaware of the existence of noticeboards.
[redacted]
As I was randomly wiki-stalking his contributions page today, I noticed that he'd spent the past week working hard on the page for FilmRise, which he created back in March (two months after the above almost-edit-war). It is the exact same article as the FKF article, but with the name of the company changed and some more recent (and self-promoting) paragraphs added. There's been no attempt to redirect the original page or fix the original problems; the new page still reads like a news release.
[redacted]
Whether you think I'm a moron or actually onto something, thank you so much for reading this, my first NPOV noticeboard post. I'm not sure how to notify Sarason that I've made this post; if there's a relevant template I can place on his usertalk page, please let me know. FekketCantenel ( talk) 00:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
After posting and returning to the main noticeboard, I saw the NPOVN-notice instructions. I will post that on his user talk page now. FekketCantenel ( talk) 00:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Next item. It's clear that there's a ton of non-neutral editing was going on in those articles. I have redirected Fisher Klingenstein Films to FilmRise, without worrying about the editing history: they were basically the same articles, and the edits are preserved in the history of FKF (tell you what--and I hope that John, Dennis Brown, Bbb23, TParis don't mind looking over my shoulder--I'm going to protect that redirect). I've seriously trimmed Alan Klingenstein and Nelson Antonio Denis, and did the same for FilmRise. I pinged you guys again: if you agree with the basic gist of those edits, state it here for the record, so that Fekket and others have something to fall back on later, should disruption erupt. Fekket, so far so good? I'm not going to address the identity and the other links--by editing those articles I think we achieve the result we want as well. Oh, I left an only warning on the talk page of Sarason. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
A small and apparently deadlocked disagreement at the Talk:History of Lego#Uncritical timeline - in the article's brief summary of the recent Lego Movie, is it enough to quote an LA Times review round-up describing the film as "a critical and commercial success" as fact, or is that an opinion which should be balanced by quoting a New York Times reviewer who used the phrase "90-minute infomercial"? A sample diff of the disputed line is here. -- McGeddon ( talk) 13:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Stumbled upon this rather suspect article today. The only source that seems reliable (Marcombe's "Leper Knights") only covers the Order up to its dissolution in England in the 1500. A lot of the other sources appear to be first party works by the purported modern descendants of the Order, and/or self published.
Some quick research suggests that there was a fairly obscure Order of Saint Lazarus, which became defunct after the French Revolution. There are also a number of modern "recreations", some of which purport to continuations of the original order. One of the key figures involved appears to have been Robert Gayre, which does not inspire a great deal of confidence. At a bare minimum, I'm inclined to wipe everything post 18th century as unsourced and just mention that a number of modern organizations are named after the original order. -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 10:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a short and simple case. Ernesto Kreplak is a man from Argentina, involved in two political scandals, and the article says so. But some users ( User:Tiopappo and some IPs) try several times to remove this information from the article, and leave just a whitewashed version that merely mentions some small pet projects he has. Note that the content being removed is the only content that cites references which are not involved with Kreplak; in fact they are the only references with a proper format (the other content may be found at the external links). As for the references I used, I consider that Clarín and La Nación are reliable: Clarín is a member of the Global Editors Network, and La Nación is Argentina's newspaper of record. I tried to discuss it at Talk:Ernesto Kreplak#Campagnoli, but to no avail: the request to discuss the problem has been ignored, and the removals of content continued. Cambalachero ( talk) 03:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The article on far-left politics seems to be very biased compared to its inverse. I raised the issue on the talk page, but the involved editors seemed to have preconceived notions of what "real leftism" was and thus didn't include Stalinism and consequences such as religious persecution and Antisemitism. I welcome input on the matter. -- monochrome_ monitor 16:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The following RFC could use additional input and may be of interest to the members of this noticeboard Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The opening sentence of the Abiogenesis article treats abiogenesis as a proven fact, calling it a "natural process". Yet the article itself says abiogenesis was originally coined as a 'hypothesis' and that 'There is still no "standard model"' for the theory, listing many alternative hypotheses for how abiogenisis might have happened. In other words, several competing hypotheses prove abiogenesis is not hypothetical!? How does that make sense?
If abiogenesis has been scientifically proven by observed processes, and we now have proof how non-living matter became living matter, then this needs to be made clear in the article and all the incorrect, outdated hypotheses need to labeled so. If, however, abiogenesis has not been scientifically established and remains theoretical (as would seem to be the case), then the opening sentence of the article needs to indicate that it is hypothetical science (much like, say, the article for Dark Matter).
I tried to raise this concern in the talk section and was accused of trying to promote a non-neutral agenda! On the contrary! I am trying to promote neutrality and honesty. I assert that the article is NOT neutral and its opening sentence is the result of unscientific personal bias akin to superstition. Grand Dizzy ( talk) 15:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
This article appears very biased:
I've stopped editing that article pending further opinion from here. -- Marianian( talk) 09:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
...is taking place at the COI Noticeboard here, [10]. It is a thorny issue, of a Harvard Prof and wife contributing two thirds of all article content on the Prof (including a 2013 edit that more than doubled the biographical content of the article), and basing primacy of discovery claims on the Prof's own published primary sources (raising COI/POV issues, but also OR issues in the editor's choosing between primary sources). A further issue is the overly positive tone of their article, and the lack of substantive coverage of controversies engendered by the Prof's statements and writings. Please chime in there if non-independence/autobiographical matters (or original research in science writing) is in your area of WP expertise or interest. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 22:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
When an editor places a tag questioning the neutrality of an article, can the tag be removed if the editor does not engage in discussion on the reason for the tag or withdraws from the discussion for several weeks? Rev107 ( talk) 01:18, 30 July 2014 (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 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
Article: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article content: "Interest in such scientists has been increased by attempts to compile lists of dissenting scientists, including a minority report to the US Senate by Marc Morano, another by Arthur B. Robinson, which is often known as the Oregon Petition, and another by the Heartland Institute, all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds."
Ref: Steven Newton (2012-04-30). "Voices: Defending science: The link between creationism and climate change". EARTH Magazine. Retrieved 2014-04-20.
"Having failed to convince the scientific community of the credibility of their views, both creationists and climate change deniers have taken their case to the public in a way that distorts and misrepresents the nature of science."
"Take petitions, for example. Creationists maintain a “Dissent from Darwin” list of several hundred Ph.D.s who have signed a statement encouraging “careful examination of the evidence” for what is vaguely termed “Darwinian theory”; climate change deniers have the so-called Oregon Petition, with more than 31,000 signers endorsing a statement denying that there is any “convincing evidence” that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause “catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”"
"Such petitions convey the misleading impression that science is a popularity contest. Whether evolution and climate change are good science is, ultimately, a matter of evidence, not of who can amass more signatures. But that’s not the way deniers portray it."
The author is Steve Newton of NCSE( NCSE profile)
NSCE highlighted the article on their website.
Related discussions:
Discussion:
Simply, should the source demonstrating the viewpoint of National Center for Science Education be added to the other references of criticisms? (There is some question of the reference being a reliable source for NCSE's viewpoint that wasn't completely clarified in the RSN discussion). -- Ronz ( talk) 21:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
(There are no sources demonstrating the article's topic as defined by it's inclusion criteria is notable, but we're way off topic here.)
So NCSE's viewpoint, yes or no? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Author Jeanette Winterson killed a rabbit from her garden and ate it, then tweeted about it and received some blowback. The incident got a bit of coverage in the British press. A version of the story, sourced to the Daily Mail, has now been added and removed twice and then restored a third time. Does it belong in our article (per WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT) and if so, does the current version conform with WP:NPOV? Comments are invited at Talk:Jeanette Winterson#Rabbit stew. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Please go through the article Cheraman Juma Masjid and Talk:Cheraman Juma Masjid. There are 2 sides of story about the life of the last Chera king. An user removed the existing lines and added the other side. The user repeatedly deletes those well sourced lines and object to bring the article to WP:NPOV. Please look into and decide. Wasif ( talk) 09:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
An RFC is underway at Talk: Cold fusion concerning which of the WP:ARBPS categories is the NPOV characterization of experiments on cold fusion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, there are not unreasonable POV concerns regarding just about everybody involved on these pages. Uninvolved eyes are definitely welcome and probably needed. John Carter ( talk) 00:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just made a huge revert on the above page, which read like an advertorial for the company before I got to it. Unfortunately, the page is now not particularly good, but better than before I feel, and I don't have the wiki skillz to improve it further. I have commented on the (empty) Talk page about my edit. Thing is, I'm way outside my editing comfort zone, and a change like that in my areas of interest would set off all sorts of alarms. I believe that the editor I reverted probably has an undeclared COI, and is certainly a WP:SPA.
So, I suppose I really just want somebody to pat me on the back and say "It's OK Roxy, you did a good thing" or perhaps "Bad dog, Roxy, go to your kennel." Pretty please? - Roxy the dog ( resonate) 12:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This is to notify about a RfC, Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: When COMMONNAME depends on country, culture, or demography which involves a strong NPOV issue. Your input would be appreciated. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 10:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I have encountered chronic censorship from User:Bobrayner in the article Economic growth. The censorship is related to ideas that energy use and energy efficiency are important factors in economic growth, which is well supported by prominent economists, beginning with William Stanley Jevons, the father of neo-classical economics. This claim also comes from many economic historians. It is also the view of various energy agencies and engineering and technical societies, the U.S. Federal Reserve and others. There are numerous books and papers with data and models of energy and growth, some of which show much higher correlations than the simpler neo-classical models. Unfortunately this information gets deleted.
User:Bobrayner is sneaky (methodical, systematic deletion) and deceptive and does not keep his word. Objections to some of the information about energy having too much emphasis was addressed by having it in a separate article. User:Bobrayner had that articled deleted saying it could be handled in economic growth as the sole article. He then systematically had all of the information censored out of economic growth. I did considerable research and found extremely solid information and references and put this into the much improved article (not just about energy but many parts of the article) but the energy part is still under under attack. To date I have not seen User:Bobrayner show any understanding of the subject matter in his criticisms or cite any references to back up his POV. If he has any logical argument to back up his POV I'd like to hear it. Phmoreno ( talk) 02:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Phmoreno ( talk) 01:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
RE: Vandalism: You just deleted the content without any substantial discussion. If you had concerns about synthesis or original research, they should have been explained, citing the specific passages and your reasoning, on the Talk page. I am willing to correct any reasonable objections, but am not willing to listen to your discrediting reputable sources. Simply deleting content because you don't like it is RUDE! Phmoreno ( talk) 12:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Phmoreno ( talk) 03:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
RE: Luddite fallacy ( Technological unemployment) What are you talking about? I contributed practically nothing to this article except a little clean up because it was such a disaster. What happened is that another editor (a previous ally of yours) made such ignorant (of the subject matter) statements that he made a complete fool of himself and was scolded by a Wiki monitor (or whatever these people are called). I don't get involved with such people so I abandoned the article. Somebody else can deal with it. Moving back to your original statement, you're mentioning another article indicates a prejudice against me, especially since my major contributions to that article were on the Talk page. What's worse, you're confusing me with someone else. Phmoreno ( talk) 22:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Final thought RE Technological unemployment: You fail to appreciate how much I improved Automation after successfully getting Luddite fallacy moved to Technological unemployment so I cold work on Automation, which I basically wrote by myself. Technological unemployment is of little interest to me; however, it caused me to read a really good book. Phmoreno ( talk) 05:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I would invite you to take place in the RFC. It involves rather to include certain material which I think is important to keeping the article WP:NOV. Please take part here. 16:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
User:EllenCT has posted a non-neutral talk page section heading which she refuses to revise.
As EllenCT seems inclined to post an RFC/U about me, I have not revised the section heading, but bring this up here for community comment and action. (Hoping, of course, that the section heading be revised.) – S. Rich ( talk) 02:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see http://britishbeekeeping.com/ for the most recent details and some background information. EllenCT ( talk) 03:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The particular section has been moved and retitled with this edit. I am marking this thread as {{ Resolved}}. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to invite you to comment on a RfC/User conduct opened in this section, actually including more articles, but centred on Navarre. Your input is much appreciated. Iñaki LL ( talk) 07:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Carlstak is persistent in adding the line "The Institute received $5,000 in funding from Philip Morris in 1995." at The Independent Institute#Funding. TII is now a $2.4 million think tank and the source of this info re the donation is a thank you letter written by TII's president. Vidmastb had removed an earlier version ("The Institute has received funding from Philip Morris.") because of a bad link. SPECIFICO fixed the link and restored it here. I removed the line here with an edit summary re the small size (UNDUE) of the donation and primary source referencing. Carlstak reverted. I revised the sentence and tagged it as UNDUE here. I then opened a talk page thread on the UNDUE issue at Talk:The Independent Institute#Funding from Philip Morris. Specifico has agreed that the line is undue. MastCell does not disagree, but has provided references from secondary sources. Following their comments, I removed the line. Carlstak reverted, saying "use talk" even though the thread had been opened. I reverted, pointing out the thread & support for removal. Carlstak has revered again, without an edit summary. Carlstak has not participated in this thread, although he was involved in earlier discussions last year. I submit that Carlstak is POV-warring for this trivial bit of information. – S. Rich ( talk) 23:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
If a territory recently ceased to exist and/or a city recently changed its name, what name should we use in an article that discusses events before & after? My understanding of best practice was that we show the contemporary name and then, if there's a big difference or if it needs to be clarified, we parenthetically give the current name. Or something along those lines. However, this edit to Arsim Abazi's place of birth suggests otherwise. That article has two sources; one says he was born in Uroševac (ie. the placename at the time he was born), and one says he was born in Ferizaj (the placename now). bobrayner ( talk) 20:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
If there really is a guideline somewhere that says we should only use outdated placenames and not current ones, I would love to see it; since that guideline needs to be improved. Can you provide a link, please? Why do you insist that other editors must back down, and follow a rule which supports your preferred style, if you can't even link to the rule? It looks like you just made it up. bobrayner ( talk) 08:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The opinions (either way) of NPOV/N experts would be appreciated here : Talk:DynCorp#Neutrality_disputed_2
Courtesy notification. Thanks Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
At the moment our article claims categorically that al-Baghdad is Caliph, with some editors also using the title in the body of the article. The title is disputed even among Sunni Muslims, with at least one t Sunni Muslim scholar, Yusef al-Qaradawi quoted as stating “We look forward to the coming, as soon as possible, of the caliphate, But the declaration issued by the Islamic State is void under sharia and has dangerous consequences for the Sunnis in Iraq and for the revolt in Syria,” He said the declaration, and the nomination of al-Baghdadi as caliph, by a group “known for its atrocities and radical views” fail to meet strict conditions dictated by sharia law. The title of caliph, he said, can “only be given by the entire Muslim nation”, not by a single group." and The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, regarded by many to be the leading authority on Sunni Islamic thought, “believes that all those who are today speaking of an Islamic State are terrorists,” his representative, Sheikh Abbas Shuman, told AFP earlier this week" [3] Given this I believe that Wikipedia stating that he is Caliph is a violation of WP:NPOV. Dougweller ( talk) 10:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's a WP:cabal of users hell-bent in making sure acupuncture is completely discredited and made to look like quackery. All scientific evidence of mechanism of action or recent discoveries of meridians basis in science is quickly reverted and laughed at. I tried to start a NPOV discussion but I was told that "an NPOV tag for the entire article based on a single editors vague assertion is not appropriate." It's a hopeless situation. Perhaps an Rfc could help? - Technophant ( talk) 15:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want.I'm not sure where this comment goes best, but, since you haven't linked to your other complaint at either of the noticeboards, I suppose I'd better put it on both. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC).
Now from time to time, scientists sit down and read a bunch of research papers, and they think about it, and they write what we call "reviews", where they try to fit all the primary research together, into a story that makes sense. The scientist doing the review will generally pick up and cite the primary studies that are part of the story that is making sense. Generally, reviews do not go so far as saying things like "the paper by that guy — that paper is bunk. We are going to ignore it." Instead, they just ignore papers that turn out to be false leads. This is really important. Only egregiously bad papers are actually retracted; there are loads and loads of papers that draw conclusions that turned out not to be true, but that remain in the literature. People who are not experts in the field have no way of knowing which research papers have been left in the dust by the scientific community. These papers are not retracted nor are they tagged in any way. They just sit there, ignored.
Doesn't change the fact that it is essentially a self-publishing website with no formal peer-review process. The articles are not indexed in any major scientific databases and most importantly, the blog has a very respectable impact factor of, well....zero.
I attempted to put a npov-section tag on the section I'm most concerned about, Acupuncture#Scientific view on TCM theory, and it was reverted with edit summary "Rm. disruptive tagging." I had also tried to discuss this first on the talk page but I was ridiculed and the right to make the protected page request was denied for being not un-controversal. I moved the request to another section but it's been ignored. Could an un-involved editor please put the tag up for me?
Also, there's several editor telling me on the talk page that ALL edits must be done by consensus. That's not how Wikipedia works. This edit by @ User:Six words and this edit by @ User:Adjwilley stand out as being threatening. - - Technophant ( talk) 02:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There really seems to be a problem here. My edits are being reverted and being called "fringe". There's a major issue with the interpretation and application of WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. This debate is going on in myofascial meridians, acupuncture, referred itch, and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).
In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience it's decided that "1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."
Is it possible to reach a compromise that can permit fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy? - Technophant ( talk) 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
A Wikipedia editor started an NPOV inquiry into whether Gary Webb was "vindicated"? Talk:Gary_Webb#Vindicated.3F - The editor argues that the CIA internal report in the 1990s did not vindicate him. The article currently states that Webb was vindicated after the editor of the Los Angeles Times stated that the newspaper's attack on him was faulty and after something another newspaper published in the 2000s (I'll have to look)
This is an important topic so I encourage Wikipedians to give this their attention WhisperToMe ( talk) 09:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
LaRouche-related disputes are often messy. LaRouche's group seems to be in perpetual combat with other activist groups on both the left and the right. LaRouche typically accuses his opponents of being fascist or proto-fascist. Some of his nominally leftist opponents in turn call him fascist or proto-fascist, while his nominally rightist opponents call him socialist or communist. There have been edit wars in the past over whether to include these accusations and how much weight to give them. I think that the most reliable characterization of LaRouche comes from a recent article in the New York Times, which describes him as a "controversial activist" whose "views defy simple categorization."
The present dispute, which shows no signs of progress on the talk page ( Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Fursov redux), is over the section entitled Allegations of fascism, anti-Semitism, and racism, and specifically over whether to include this rebuttal quote. My view is that the commentator is notable, and his view should be included under NPOV. It may also help mitigate any BLP problems associated with this section. Input from uninvolved editors would be helpful, since the involved editors appear to be deadlocked. Joe Bodacious ( talk) 13:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I can see Writegeist's point. I think that including the portion about the scientific basis, without the slam on the "intellectuals", might be a suitable compromise. Joe Bodacious ( talk) 18:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is the new text I propose to add to the article: In response to King, historian Stanley G. Payne of the University of Wisconsin wrote in 1996 that the National Caucus of Labor Committees, a LaRouche-affiliated group, had "only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement", [1] while another historian, Andrei Fursov of the Moscow Institute for the Humanities, said that the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics. [2] Joe Bodacious ( talk) 22:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Once again, the text I propose to add to the article: In response to King, historian Stanley G. Payne of the University of Wisconsin wrote in 1996 that the National Caucus of Labor Committees, a LaRouche-affiliated group, had "only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement", [3] while another historian, Andrei Fursov of the Moscow Institute for the Humanities, said that the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics. [4] Are there any policy-based objections to this text? Joe Bodacious ( talk) 02:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
References
As an uninvolved party, based on the discussion here it appears to me that inclusion would give too much weight to a fringe viewpoint. Gamaliel ( talk) 16:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
From a cursory scan, I'm not sure this is written from a NPOV, but would like a second opinion, The talk page is worse. :( ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 20:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I have serious questions which I have raised on the talk page regarding whether the article adheres to WP:WTW and also about the broader neutrality of the article and also some expressed concerns regarding conduct matters. Additional input there would be very welcome. John Carter ( talk) 22:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
About eight months ago, while randomly looking up movies, I stumbled upon the article for Fisher Klingenstein Films (henceforth FKF). As you can see, the page reads like a news release. At the time, there had been much discussion on the talk page about how bad it was, with the creating editor, Nelsondenis248 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), repeatedly insisting on discussion, consensus, etc.
Being a brand-new editor, I thought I'd stretch my muscles by fixing it up. I spent an hour or two working on a trimmed-down version that removed the gobs and gobs of praise that made the page read so biased. As I noted on the talk page, I left one section relatively intact to demonstrate how poorly it was constructed, and suggested that the movie be split into its own page.
Sarason ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) proceeded to 'restore' the old version of the article and scolded me on the talk page. I responded by placing a 'news release' tag on the article page and hoping someone else would come along and complete what I had failed. At the time, I was unaware of the existence of noticeboards.
[redacted]
As I was randomly wiki-stalking his contributions page today, I noticed that he'd spent the past week working hard on the page for FilmRise, which he created back in March (two months after the above almost-edit-war). It is the exact same article as the FKF article, but with the name of the company changed and some more recent (and self-promoting) paragraphs added. There's been no attempt to redirect the original page or fix the original problems; the new page still reads like a news release.
[redacted]
Whether you think I'm a moron or actually onto something, thank you so much for reading this, my first NPOV noticeboard post. I'm not sure how to notify Sarason that I've made this post; if there's a relevant template I can place on his usertalk page, please let me know. FekketCantenel ( talk) 00:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
After posting and returning to the main noticeboard, I saw the NPOVN-notice instructions. I will post that on his user talk page now. FekketCantenel ( talk) 00:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Next item. It's clear that there's a ton of non-neutral editing was going on in those articles. I have redirected Fisher Klingenstein Films to FilmRise, without worrying about the editing history: they were basically the same articles, and the edits are preserved in the history of FKF (tell you what--and I hope that John, Dennis Brown, Bbb23, TParis don't mind looking over my shoulder--I'm going to protect that redirect). I've seriously trimmed Alan Klingenstein and Nelson Antonio Denis, and did the same for FilmRise. I pinged you guys again: if you agree with the basic gist of those edits, state it here for the record, so that Fekket and others have something to fall back on later, should disruption erupt. Fekket, so far so good? I'm not going to address the identity and the other links--by editing those articles I think we achieve the result we want as well. Oh, I left an only warning on the talk page of Sarason. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
A small and apparently deadlocked disagreement at the Talk:History of Lego#Uncritical timeline - in the article's brief summary of the recent Lego Movie, is it enough to quote an LA Times review round-up describing the film as "a critical and commercial success" as fact, or is that an opinion which should be balanced by quoting a New York Times reviewer who used the phrase "90-minute infomercial"? A sample diff of the disputed line is here. -- McGeddon ( talk) 13:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Stumbled upon this rather suspect article today. The only source that seems reliable (Marcombe's "Leper Knights") only covers the Order up to its dissolution in England in the 1500. A lot of the other sources appear to be first party works by the purported modern descendants of the Order, and/or self published.
Some quick research suggests that there was a fairly obscure Order of Saint Lazarus, which became defunct after the French Revolution. There are also a number of modern "recreations", some of which purport to continuations of the original order. One of the key figures involved appears to have been Robert Gayre, which does not inspire a great deal of confidence. At a bare minimum, I'm inclined to wipe everything post 18th century as unsourced and just mention that a number of modern organizations are named after the original order. -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 10:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a short and simple case. Ernesto Kreplak is a man from Argentina, involved in two political scandals, and the article says so. But some users ( User:Tiopappo and some IPs) try several times to remove this information from the article, and leave just a whitewashed version that merely mentions some small pet projects he has. Note that the content being removed is the only content that cites references which are not involved with Kreplak; in fact they are the only references with a proper format (the other content may be found at the external links). As for the references I used, I consider that Clarín and La Nación are reliable: Clarín is a member of the Global Editors Network, and La Nación is Argentina's newspaper of record. I tried to discuss it at Talk:Ernesto Kreplak#Campagnoli, but to no avail: the request to discuss the problem has been ignored, and the removals of content continued. Cambalachero ( talk) 03:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The article on far-left politics seems to be very biased compared to its inverse. I raised the issue on the talk page, but the involved editors seemed to have preconceived notions of what "real leftism" was and thus didn't include Stalinism and consequences such as religious persecution and Antisemitism. I welcome input on the matter. -- monochrome_ monitor 16:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The following RFC could use additional input and may be of interest to the members of this noticeboard Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The opening sentence of the Abiogenesis article treats abiogenesis as a proven fact, calling it a "natural process". Yet the article itself says abiogenesis was originally coined as a 'hypothesis' and that 'There is still no "standard model"' for the theory, listing many alternative hypotheses for how abiogenisis might have happened. In other words, several competing hypotheses prove abiogenesis is not hypothetical!? How does that make sense?
If abiogenesis has been scientifically proven by observed processes, and we now have proof how non-living matter became living matter, then this needs to be made clear in the article and all the incorrect, outdated hypotheses need to labeled so. If, however, abiogenesis has not been scientifically established and remains theoretical (as would seem to be the case), then the opening sentence of the article needs to indicate that it is hypothetical science (much like, say, the article for Dark Matter).
I tried to raise this concern in the talk section and was accused of trying to promote a non-neutral agenda! On the contrary! I am trying to promote neutrality and honesty. I assert that the article is NOT neutral and its opening sentence is the result of unscientific personal bias akin to superstition. Grand Dizzy ( talk) 15:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
This article appears very biased:
I've stopped editing that article pending further opinion from here. -- Marianian( talk) 09:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
...is taking place at the COI Noticeboard here, [10]. It is a thorny issue, of a Harvard Prof and wife contributing two thirds of all article content on the Prof (including a 2013 edit that more than doubled the biographical content of the article), and basing primacy of discovery claims on the Prof's own published primary sources (raising COI/POV issues, but also OR issues in the editor's choosing between primary sources). A further issue is the overly positive tone of their article, and the lack of substantive coverage of controversies engendered by the Prof's statements and writings. Please chime in there if non-independence/autobiographical matters (or original research in science writing) is in your area of WP expertise or interest. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 22:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
When an editor places a tag questioning the neutrality of an article, can the tag be removed if the editor does not engage in discussion on the reason for the tag or withdraws from the discussion for several weeks? Rev107 ( talk) 01:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)