This article was nominated for
deletion on 19 December 2008 (UTC). The result of
the discussion was keep.
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.
Denis.g.rancourt (
talk·contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (Please see
here)
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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
I don't have a dog in the race. The material you deleted did not come across to me as promoting an opinion. Your edit summary for deleting the material, delete reception by two other crackpots, improving the quality of the section from -3 to -1, did not sound like it came from a neutral viewpoint. Merely invoking the uninformative and seemingly gratuitous term "fringe", with no other explanation, does not help support your case. Some readers may not consider the sources cited, namely The Nation and the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, to be "fringe" sources.
Erictalk13:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It does not matter how it sounds to you.
Climate change denial is ideologically motivated pseudoscience, it is outside of Rancourt's expertise, the two guys who agree with him are scientifically illiterate, and their opinions are uninformed bullshit. They are not reliable sources for anything scientific, no matter where they publish it. That is how it is, it's not my fault.
Generally, Wikipedia editors are not supposed to scan the output of the articles' subjects for whatever the editors find interesting. Instead, if reliable
WP:SECONDARY sources take note of what they say, then it can be added. Otherwise, Wikipedia turns into a megaphone for all sorts of garbage. The whole section should be deleted. --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
13:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You state that my read does not matter, then attempt to substantiate that gratuitous dismissal with a series of strong opinions presented as factual assertions. Am I to take this as a reasonable justification for deleting the material you did not like?
Erictalk21:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not about "not liking" them. It's about the low quality of those sources. They all push an anti-science ideology.
This apparently goes back to an edit by Hob Gadling on
4 April 2022 with edit summary = "Climate change views: cut anti-science crap quotes", which removed a lot and stated that Alexander Cockburn and James Inhofe are "climate change deniers". An IP 46.210.46.48 on
11 March 2024 changed deniers to skeptics. Hob Gadling on
19 March 2024 removed entirely the mentions of Mr Cockburn and Mr Inhofe with edit summary "Climate change views: delete reception by two other crackpots, improving the quality of the section from -3 to -1". Eric on
19 March 2024 reverted Hob Gadling's edit, with edit summary "Reverting edit(s) by Hob Gadling (talk) to rev. 1213231519 by 46.210.46.48: rv unexplained and apparently ideologically motivated deletion (RW 16.1)". IP 208.87.236.202 on
19 March 2024 effectively undid Eric's change, with edit summary "rv per WP:FRINGE". Eric on
19 March 2024 reverted the IP's change, with edit summary = "undo unexplained revert from repeat contentious IP". IP 208.87.236.202 on
20 March 2024 changed skeptics to denialists, and went to
Eric's talk page to say that Eric was in an edit war. Eric on
20 March 2024 changed denialists to skeptics, with edit summary "Climate change views: restore terminology that was more neutral and less politically charged". ... Since Hob Gadling was the editor who inserted "denier", and the IPs cancel each other out, this looks to me like a no-consensus in a BLP so far. But I now add support for Eric's editing since opinions are allowed in the article by prominent people, and Hob Gadling's language e.g. "anti-science crap" and "crackpots" strikes me as inappropriate even for edit summaries or talk page threads -- WP:BLP applies even outside articles.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk)
19:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply