Talk:Bishop Hill (blog)

Premature?

It looks like this may have been prematurely promoted to mainspace. Anyway, it needed lots of corrections William M. Connolley (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It`s fine as it is, please note i have reverted your removal of well sourced content. Thank you mark nutley (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is fine. Indeed, I think that your version is POV and have said so William M. Connolley (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully expected that :-), sadly the only crit i can find is the desmogblog one. Now before you go tearing stuff apart could you let me know what exactly you think is not neutral? mark nutley (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you expected that problem, then the onus was on you to address it up front. "Writing for the enemy" and all that. Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific, the issue isn't POV in your coverage of the blog (there's almost not coverage of the blog) - the problem lies with the fact that the article is used to present one side of an issue without balance. The whole "in universe" issue again. Guettarda (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a serious Wikipedia:Coatrack issue here. Most of the content isn't about the blog. Guettarda (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

All of the content is about the blog, and coatrack is not policy, it`s an essay and has nothing to do with content, please post what you think is not about the blog and we`ll discuss it mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an essay that's useful to help editors understand what should and shouldn't be in an article. You'd do well to heed it. Guettarda (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability?

I don't see anything here that meets the general notability or website notability guidelines.

1. The Ridley article[1] simply states that Montford "runs a blog called 'Bishop Hill'". Simple statement that it exists, does not amount to "significant coverage".
   1. OK, so Ridley actually talks about the Jesus post a little and its impact.
2. The Harrabin article[2] says "Climate sceptics on the sceptic website Bishop Hill ridiculed the MPs' findings". A little more here (it's hard to imagine less than Ridley's coverage) but how is this "significant coverage"? This does not "address the subject directly in detail" - it addresses the subject indirectly (it's very much a passing reference) and has no detail about the site.
3. Orlowski's mention of the site[3] is only passing mention: "The story quickly made its way round the blogosphere - thanks to Bishop Hill, Climate Audit and others"
4. The Batty and Adam article[4] similarly makes only passing mention to the site: "The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog..."
5. Littlemore's mention[5] is similarly trivial: "So, what do you say, Steve McIntyre, Bishop Hill, Chris Monckton and all the others..."
6. Delingpole[6] finally gets beyond the utterly trivial, but it's still not "significant coverage": "Fortunately the great Bishop Hill has been doing some digging. ... But as Bishop Hill has discovered it’s rather more sinister than that." But this still doesn't "address the subject in detail".
7. In his own blog, Delingpole's mention[7] is similarly trivial: "Bishop Hill has unearthed a jaw-dropping critique of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. His post’s so delightful there’s no need for embellishment" - it says nothing about the blog, it merely affirms Montford's reporting. (Note that Delingpole seems to conflate Bishop Hill, the blog, with Montford, the person).
8. Watts post[8] is harder to evaluate. It's non-trivial coverage of the content of the blog, although it also says nothing about the blog. It doesn't "address the subject in detail" though. Borderline, I'd say. The thing is that this is a blog reposting content from another blog. And that's a problem. Marginally notable blogs reposting content from other blogs does not really establish notability.

The problem is clear if you read WP:WEB: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. FiveFour of these sources make utterly trivial mention of the site, while the fifth says just a little bit about it. Two more, both blogs by Delingpole, get beyond utterly trivial, but don't make it to "signficant", while the last may be significant, but just by way of a repost of content. And it comes from just another blog, that we really wouldn't use as a reliable source for very much. "Multiple non-trivial published works" this is not. Guettarda (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Additions underlined Guettarda (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe being mentioned by multipile reliable sources give notablity, one of those sources is the BBC a blog being mentioned by the beeb is highly notable mark nutley (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, your belief is mistaken. You should read the guidelines I linked to. You need non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Not trivial, passing mention. Guettarda (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well do an AFD if you think it`s not notable mate, i think it is, lets get some others to comment mark nutley (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Very constructive. Why not just add some non-trivial coverage? If it's notable, it should have some. Guettarda (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Another possible RS: it is decribed as "widely read" by Ben Webster in the Times. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

With ridley in The Spectator, Webster in The Times and the fact that the BBC have covered this blog can we lose the notability tag? mark nutley (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you still haven't addressed the concerns by Guettarda. Significant coverage in secondary sources - not "mentioned in passing" in secondary sources. (You really really do need to check out and try to understand WP:NOTABLE) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have, the three sources i mention above do more than mention the blog in passing mark nutley (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of this being commented on? Or can i remove the tags? mark nutley (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Any objections at all to the tags being removed? mark nutley (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You need to find some sources that meet WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Asking the same question over and over without doing anything to solve the problem doesn't solve the problem. Guettarda (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So you don`t think the speccie the beeb and the times is enough? mark nutley (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read my explanation, dated April 15, that starts this section. The Ridley article from the Spectator just gets over the non-trivial bar. The Harrabin and Webster articles make trivial mention. I have explained the first two already. Mention in the Webster article is about as trivial as you can get - it says that Montford writes the blog. Guettarda (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why are you even bothering to edit it? Just do an afd if you think it has no hope mark nutley (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say merge it with Montford's article. In essence, Bishop Hill is Montford, not so? Delingpole, for example, seemed to be calling the man Bishop Hill. Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd say merge the book too, since the book, the blog and the man are all closely intertwined. I honestly think that if the three of them were combined you'd have an article with some substance, as opposed to three very short articles, all scrambling for content. Guettarda (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no. You can`t merge an article about a blog into a blp, the ref situation would be a nightmare. The book is more than notable enough to have it`s own article so that`s a no also. Just afd it and be done mark nutley (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd say merge the book too, since the book, the blog and the man are all closely intertwined - yes, makes a lot of sense. See-also Singer and NIPCC William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And again, no both the book and montford are notable enough for their own articles, as i said do an afd on this and be done with it mark nutley (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are fond of repeating yourself. However saying the same wrong thing multiple times doesn't make it any truer William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If Montford or the Hockey Stick illusion were not notable enough they would already have been AFD, Both have more than enough coverage to show notability, If you feel they do not then try an AFD on them, And as stated if you feel this article is not notable enough then again, AFD is thataway

Jumping in: I agree that this blog doesn't look notable in its own right and that merging this article as well as The Hockey Stick Illusion‎ into Andrew Montford would be the best way to handle this constellation of topics. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to my above reply, there ill be no merging of articles mark nutley (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously no notability. Delete article. ► RATEL ◄ 00:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Alexia

Marknutley, who is apparently the owner of this article, has removed the statment that "As of April 2010, Bishop Hill was unranked at Alexa, a website which measures web traffic," stating is his edit summary "remove alexa, it measures squarespace, not blogs hosted on it." Alexia chooses not to rank this blog - it could, in the way it choses to rate individual blogs on blogspot.com. I don't know why this sourced information is being censored. Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not censoring you, Alexa has no details for this blog, only for the host. What is the point of having that in the article? Shall we write, this blog has no stats from alexa as alexa only seems to cover the host? I`m looking at quantcast now, it would appear you need an account with them to actually add code to your site so your site gets tracked. If this is the case then that`ll have to go as well as we have no way of knowing if montford has this code embedded into his site mark nutley (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I wrote. Quantcast says they estimate traffic for the blog. Are you saying they are not a reliable source? Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would agree with Mark. Alexa and Quantcast are not reliable to data on small or niche sites. Alexa is never - Quantcast might - if BH is a subscriber (ie. they have an invisible counting image or the like). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Why always so aggressive? Calm down a little. Now, how do you know alexa can track blogs on squarespace as they do on blogspot? You know when this blog was on .blogspot alexa ranked it at 12,797,002 It says on the page you have linked to "Sorry, your search for bishophill.squarespace.com produced no results." This is because alexa does not track blogs on squarespace. So yes, in this case it is not reliable. But as i have been told by yourself, sources depend on context mark nutley (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, you are saying alexia is not a reliable source for what alexia does and does not rank? Hipocrite (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not what i said, i said alexa does not track blogs on squarespace. If they do not track them then they can`t have any stats for them, can i make this any simpler for you? You are confusing subdomain tracking with domain tracking. mark nutley (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree that alexia is a good source for what alexia does and does not track? Do you agree that alexia does not track this blog? Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Here`s an example of want i mean star-trek-games.com and A subdomain on the main site perhaps this will help clear it up mark nutley (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that alexia does not track individual blogs on squarespace (but I used OR to do so - I cannot find a source for this info). One blog on squarespace is this blog. Alexia does not track this blog. I have included this information on the article. Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

And on quantcast [9] no results as this site does not have the code required embedded for them to track it. BTW, the site gets on average 4k hits a month mark nutley (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quantcast has demographic information on that page. We could include that demographic information in an article about the site. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no they have at best a guess. How can they have information if they don`t have the ability to track the site? mark nutley (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying Quantcast is not a reliable source for blog traffic estimates? Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you incapable of reading? For the last time, unless you have their code embedded in your index.php then they can`t track your site. What part of this do you not get? mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The part where you aren't willing to tell me if Quantcast is or is not a reliable source for blog traffic estimates. I think they are reliable - if they give an estimate, I don't mind using it. Apparently, you don't think they're reliable - you think that sometimes their estimates are reliable and sometimes they are not reliable. Is that accurate? Hipocrite (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you are obviously trying it on here. Read what i have written you have had your anwser mark nutley (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's make sure we all stay consistent with what we say at Talk:DeSmogBlog‎ :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Per the consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard neither alexia or quantcast are reliable. I`ll remove them tommorow mark nutley (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats an overestimation of what the RS/N board said - but i do agree that it isn't reliable when we are talking about small or specialized sites. Try not to generalize what is and isn't an RS - most things are reliable in some cases and unreliable in others. Which is also why there isn't such a thing as a list of reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Irony

Failed snark. Move along, nothing to see
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It may well be true, but shirley A dissentient afflicted with the malady of thought is a violation of BLP? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Who is shirley? I don`t see how a website slogan can be a BLP violation mark nutley (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC) It appears it calls itself that. Hipocrite (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC) So it does. How very amusing and yet apposite William M. Connolley (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

I (and it would seem, several others) think this and Andrew Montford and The Hockey Stick Illusion should be merged. Anyone care which way? The discussion seems to have begun here. I'd be inclined to suggest that the book is the most notable, so merge there. That is the default; anyone care to argue for any other direction? Note to the usual suspects: please don't argue "no no this shall not be!" That is an arguement to save for the merge proprosal itself William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, as stated both The Hockey Stick Illusion and Andrew Montford are notable enough for their own articles. If you feel this article fails notability then do an AFD mark nutley (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly about which way to do it, but my inclination would be discuss everything under the umbrella of Andrew Montford. The book may be the most notable of the three, but it seems more logical (to me) for an article about a man to discuss that man's works (a book and a blog) than for an article about a book to talk about a blog by the same author. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Should`nt there be a tag at the top of this page saying this proposed merger is under discussion? mark nutley (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Like I said: Note to the usual suspects: please don't argue "no no this shall not be!" That is an arguement to save for the merge proprosal itself. This isn't the merge proposal. This is a little discussion to see if we can decide which is the obvious way to suggest the merge. Once there actually is a merge proposal I'll put up the tags and you can say "no no this must not be!" William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Like i said, not gonna happen mark nutley (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN much, Mark? Yilloslime ^T_C 21:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As far as I see both the book and this article both has substantial cover. Just added the Times article to back up widely-read. What the book has to do with this blog I'm really curious about? Nsaa (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say under the book. The book is the most notable of the three - its what makes Montford interesting in the eyes of the press, and the blog seems mostly to be concerned about items in the book. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally (as a comment to Mark) the book is the most likely item to survive an AfD - since articles on books are generally considered valuable additions (iirc). The new BLP rules would make it extremely hard for AM to survive (barely notable), and the blog is simply only mentioned in conflation with either the book or AM. So it is really the best spot - if you want this to survive :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks, . Both the book and montford are notable enough to have their own articles, if not then this would already have happened to them mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Another paper saying the blog is widely read Andrew Montford, a climate-change skeptic who writes the widely-read Bishop Hill blog mark nutley (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean "Another unreliable source, that just barely mentions..."? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Another one The Times was following up a story by Andrew Montford, better known for the blog Bishop Hill, and author of a new book on the Hockey Stick scandal Gotta be pretty notable for the times to follow your stories Bishop Hill: Gonzo science and the Hockey Stick mark nutley (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not every topic meets that our pitifully low notability criteria necessarily needs to have its own article. Sometimes it makes more sense not to split out something from a main article, even when it technically could have its own article. The question here is: how are the blog, the book, and the author best handled. Maybe there are in fact great reasons to treat each one separately, but it seems to me that the best way to justice to all three (and the reader, for that matter) is to handle them in one article since they a so inter-related, and there's not really much material to be covered in stand alone blog and author articles that isn't mentioned in the book article. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone says something really convincing soon, I'm going to go for (i.e., to prevent panic, I'm going to propose merge-to) the book. YS's idea of the Man is plausible, but (a) I don't think he is notable; certainly less so than his book, and (b) it weakens the BLP issues a bit to use the book. If he turns out to write another exciting book, or becomes independently notable, we can always undo all this William M. Connolley (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

For BLP reasons, I would prefer to merge the Montford article into this one and keep this article. Cla68 (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see good arguments for merging the three articles down into two or possibly even one. The book article is certainly the strongest if there is a full scale merge, but my preference would be to merge down to two, the book and the blog; I struggle to see anyway in which Montford is notable except as the author of the book or the owner of the blog. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

have you looked to see if he is notable? Thus far he has been interviewed, he is very notable. I have also begun to move this article over onto the Montford article, so if a merge happens it may as well go there.

In a Times Online live special which featured The Times environment editor Ben Webster, Andrew Montford, and Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment debated. Montford said in the debate "OK, it's pretty clear that the three investigations are not intended to get at the truth. All of the panels have had highly questionable memberships and remits that divert them away from the issues. There are some really, really serious allegations that have been ignored by both the panels that have reported so far.

Montford has been interviewed by the Newshour show on the BBC World Service over the findings by the University Of East Anglia`s findings into the Climategate Controversy he said "I made the point that the scope of the panel missed key allegations and cited Ross McKitrick's point that Jones had inserted baseless statements into the IPCC reports". When the interviewer asked if skeptics would ever be happy he replied "we would, if presented with evidence that the allegations were false". The Channel 4 programme "The Report" Asked Montford to look at some of the questions Phil Jones might be asked during the Parliamentary Investigation into the controversy.

In an interview with The Times he questioned the appointment of Lord Oxburgh to the panel on conflict of interest grounds, writing "Lord Oxburgh has a direct financial interest in the outcome of his inquiry. mark nutley (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding - the Montford part of the BBC Newshour radio show wasn't an interview as much as a comment - He was on for less than 2 minutes! - talk about puffing up notability - Doh! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

He has been on that show twice, any reason in particular you did not mention the other refs? mark nutley (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In one of the news stories from my brother's funeral last year, I was (mis)quoted, and they published a picture of me. (Sadly, that story never made it to the online version of the paper). The story itself made the front page of all the newspapers for several days. But guess what - even if their deaths had been notable (in a Wikipedia sense, which they weren't), my part in it would not have been notable, nor would my sister (who was quoted by all the newspapers) or my mother (who was also featured in the news coverage). Passing mention in a larger story does not convey the notability of the even to you. Guettarda (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss, however this is different. Montford is being asked his opinons by these news outlets, they ask his opinion because he is notable mark nutley (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the top candidate of the three is Montford. If you look at the book, you'll see that the only non-trivial mention in a reliable source is Ridley's pair of articles. Booker simply mentions the book (for a full account, see...), and I don't think that Gilder's review counts as a reliable source - it's a blog post, it comes from the Discovery Institute (which has a poor history when it comes to facts and fact-checking), and there's little reason to think that Gilder's opinion is terribly notable. The book is borderline when it comes to WP:BN. Montford, on the other hand, is the author of the blog, he's the author of the book. It's his opinion that interest some people. He's the one with the achievement of writing the book. Guettarda (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If gilder is not notable then why is there an article about him? And his giving a review of the book has nothing to do with the discovery institute either. you omit the courier article review as well. mark nutley (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say Gilder isn't notable. I said that his opinion, on this issue, isn't notable enough for us to draw from a self-published source. Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Also now Seth Roberts mark nutley (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Another blog post by a person with no special expertise on the subject. Guettarda (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion#Merge_proposal William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Please feel free to comment Here mark nutley (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking for self revert - assuming AGF

I've just asked ChrisO (talk · contribs) to self revert at User_talk:ChrisO#Please_self_revert to Slowjoe17 at 2010-04-24T10:31:29. He has removed a host of WP:RS sourced stuff. Nsaa (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See my commentary at the foot of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Hill (blog). I've removed a lot of coatracking which should never have been in the article in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Completely in line with policy - and this is not a new problem, as has been pointed out in #Notability?. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of reliably sourced material, please do not be so disruptive again mark nutley (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, rather than reverting, why don't you address the issues I've raised? For your benefit, here's the list of issues, copied from the AfD discussion linked above:

• Para 2, "Andrew Orlowski, writing ..." - passing mention only; not about the blog itself;
• Para 3, "A post on the blog ..." - probably the only substantive fact in the entire article;
• Para 4, "Paul Dennis, a scientist ..." - passing mention only; not about the blog itself;
• Para 5, "Dr Judith Curry in an interview ..." - entirely comprised of blog comments (non-RS); focuses on things written by Andrew Montford, not about the blog itself;
• Para 6, "Anthony Watts wrote ..." - solely blog-sourced (non-RS); about Andrew Montford, not about the blog itself;
• Para 7, "Steve McIntyre on his blog ..." - solely blog-sourced (non-RS); about an article written by Andrew Montford, not about the blog itself.

In short, the article lacks any substantive commentary about the blog itself, as opposed to its proprietor or specific things that he has written; 9 of 17 sources are other blogs; of the remaining sources, only one (the Spectator article) has anything other than a passing mention of the blog. The article as originally written is basically one big coatrack, puffing Andrew Montford or his writings but saying very little about its ostensible subject, the Bishop Hill blog. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your wholesale removal of material from this article is disruptive, especially as you are voting for it to be deleted. mark nutley (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How about dealing with the substantive issues I've raised? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's what looks like disruptive behavior, and ChrisO (talk · contribs) should take this polite, and discuss every sourced statement he want to remove. What about trying to improve the article? And before anybody tries to remove this again. Please explain show that this is not WP:RS [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Nsaa (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already done this above. How about dealing with the issues I raised rather than running away from them? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I endorse ChrisO's analysis and that of Guettarda, above. Before restoring the removed content, how addressing the substantive points raised? Yilloslime ^T_C 21:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Blanking of cited content

There is an AFD and a merger discussion going on, please discuss any issues anyone may have one at a time and waiting a day or two for the result of the AFD is also a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. An ongoing AfD does not preclude editors from working on article, and that include removing poorly sourced material and material of questionable relevance. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a section above that directly addresses this. How about addressing the concerns raised there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, this issue of "cited content" is missing the point. The problem is not that the content is cited. It's that much of it comes from non-reliable sources (i.e. blogs) and has nothing to do with the ostensible subject of this article, viz. the Bishop Hill blog. It's mere puffery - praise for Montford personally and/or his writings, rather than anything substantive about the blog itself. It simply isn't relevant. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you please argue. Here we have well sourecd paragraphs, and some of you just remove it anyway: [15] [16] [17] [18]. As far as I see its backed by BBC, Guardian and The Register. Restore it. Ahh. I speak "broken English", I've learn something new today about the difficult English word "Blogs", "Blogs" like The BBC, The Guardian and The Register! Nsaa (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't sourcing, the issue is relevance as explained above. The articles aren't about the blog, or Montford, they merely mention the blog in passing. Neither the sources themselves nor the way they are used in the article add anything to the reader's understanding of Bishop Hill. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not fix the text instead of just blanking it? Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the text. Why couldn't you others do it? It's important that the reliable sources that mention the blog aren't blanked, because editors at the AfD discussion may need to see them in making a decision on whether to keep the article or not. Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not worth fixing. BBC mentioned blog once. So did the Register. Wooptido. How is this relevant? How is this encyclopedic? Yilloslime ^T_C 02:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You really don't understand why a mention in the BBC and The Register is relevant? Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Really I don't. Wikipedia is not a directory nor an arbitrary collection of information. We shouldn't be cataloging every time a newspaper makes a passing of the blog.Yilloslime ^T_C 05:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read DeSmogBlog, for which I was the primary editor, and check the sources. You'll see that that is often how we write articles. Cla68 (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of bad articles out there--not to say that DeSmogBlog is one of them (I haven't looked at yet). But if it is filled with cruft and trivial material, that doesn't mean we should allow similar articles to accumulate cruft and trivial material. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, etc. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC

You are of the mistaken impression that people think this is good idea (and encyclopedic). Trivial material such as being mentioned in one sentence in an article about something completely different - doesn't elevate to notable mention. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, many of the DeSmogBlog sources do exactly that, and it passed GA review. On another note, do you think it's a good idea to remove sources from an article during an AfD discussion in which you voted to delete? Cla68 (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Removing sourced but trivial content that may give the mistaken impression of more "significant coverage" than really exists is a very good idea, regardless of whether one !voted keep or delete. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree. I've removed it, and I've removed the similar coatracking in DeSmogBlog as well. Passing mentions do not merit coverage - it's a basic issue of weighting and relevance to an article that is supposed to be about the blog itself, not about its author or the subjects it covers. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Chris, the DeSmogBlog content was arrived at by consensus and collaboration of a number of different editors. Check the page history and the talk page. It was also reviewed and approved by an independent Good Article editor. So, are you sure you're justified in unilaterally blanking that section? If not, are you justified in doing so here also? Cla68 (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If the sourcing was just as bad as the sourcing here. Then most certainly it is justified. As i've said before: This tells us more about how little GA means in terms of content [ie. its purely a style issue] than about whether it really is a good article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing properly cited content establishing that the website is cited in media sources is inappropriate. It's particularly disturbing that this blanking is being carried out while there is an active AfD underway. KimDablestein and ChrisO should cease thir abusive behavior and restore the content post haste. Electroshoxcure (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should address this issue in the section above. The trouble is that there is no significant mention in the reliable sources, most are passing mentions, and they seem just to have been added to inflate the notability of the blog... As far as i can tell not a single one of the reliable sources (and the unreliable ones) are about the blog. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley's most recent addition is a perfect demonstration of this problem. It's from another blogger (hence not a reliable source), and it's solely about a claim made by the blogger, Andrew Montford. It's not about the blog, nor is it about the blog's author. I note that neither Marknutley nor any of the other defenders of the coatracking that's been going on here have bothered to make any substantive response to the detailed review I posted in the section above. Is their case really so weak that they dare not make it? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you, your constant removal of well sourced material is wp:disruptive stop now. The ref i added meets all the criteria for wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Where's your substantive response to my detailed review? We're waiting here. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The BBC source, as one example, specifically identifies this blog and the comments on it. Your disruptive and abusive behavior needs to stop. Electroshoxcure (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's review that source to illustrate the problem with this coatracked quotefarm. The entirety of what it says about BH is as follows: "Climate sceptics on the sceptic website Bishop Hill ridiculed the MPs' findings. One asked: "Is it April fools already?" Another commented: "No-one with half [a] brain cell will view this conclusion as anything other than a hasty and not very subtle establishment cover-up."" The substantive information we get from this is (1) BH is a denialist website (which we know already); and (2) denialists on the blog ridiculed the MPs' findings. The latter is off-topic for this article because it tells us nothing about the blog itself. It tells us only what the response of its readers was to the MPs' findings. That might possibly be relevant for Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy, the subject of that discussion, but then you would have to make the case for the views of BH readers being in any way significant in the wider context, which they're not. The bottom line is that the quote has no direct relevance to an article that is supposed to tell the reader about this blog rather than what its readers think of any random issue. As a counter-example, take a look at Talking Points Memo, which tells us a lot about the history and operations of that particular blog but doesn't fluff it up with a lot of random quotes and passing mentions. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets take this one at a time

James Delingpole writing in his blog for the Telegraph wrote "Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen."

Thrash it out here

I added the above ref, which Chriso promptly removed stating This isn't "well-cited" at all - it's from a blog (a non-RS) and it's a trivial tangential passing mention which tells us nothing about this blog Now the source is obviously wp:rs per this Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists So the source is not the problem. And i do not see how it can be described as a trivial tangential passing mention when the article cited says the following Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill and More on Lord Rees’s resolutely neutral position on AGW – as posted on the Bishop Hill blog. That`s two mentions in one article. So chris, what is the problem with this one? mark nutley (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If we were to write a sentence describing what this refrence actually tells us about the source, as opposed to just turning the article into a quotefarm the sentence would be "The blog was mentioned by James Delingpole in his blog for the Telegraph." That's the only information about the blog that adding all of that adds to the article. Now, if you were to say "That's important information!" I'd say two things. Firstly, I'd say "Honestly? It's important to note that some polemic opinion column mentions the blog a lot?" and then I'd say "If it was really important, other obviously reliable sources would mention that Delingpole cites the blog." Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks Mark for (finally!) engaging with the issues that've been raised. And thanks Hipocrite - you've put in a nutshell what the problem is here. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So what you are both saying is that even though a reliable source has quoted extensively from the blog, and mentions that fact twice, you think it is a trivial mention? mark nutley (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because it's not about the blog. This article is supposed to be about the blog, not about its author or his opinions or what other people think of his opinions. Delingpole is doing nothing more than mentioning one particular post which he wants to highlight. His mention tells us absolutely nothing substantive about the blog itself, as Hipocrite rightly points out. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, according to this [19] which says In depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines and this is exactly what this source does mark nutley (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole is a journalist with a reputation for promoting fringe views, and his blog is not a reliable source about anyone but himself: in quoting rs you missed out part of the sentence – "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." What evidence do you have that the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control? Where's the reliable source? . . dave souza, talk 21:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well as it says © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2010 at the bottom of the page they obviously retain all rights, so it is under their editorial control or it is them who would be sued not delingpole mark nutley (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That's at the foot of the page, makes no statement about editorial control, and the page also includes reader's comments which obviously aren't under full editorial control. Better evidence needed. . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

[20] There you go, We are the owner or the licensee of all intellectual property rights in the Site the Content and the Trade Marks mark nutley (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Says nothing about editorial control. This should be considered as a WP:SPS, as other blogs by journalists are when published in newspaper websites without specific statements of editorial control. Also note "may be acceptable", not "must be accepted" – Delingpole appears to be a propagandist rather than an expert. . . dave souza, talk 22:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on Delingpole is irrelevant. If the Telegraph retains copyright then they obviously retain editorial control. However wp:rs also says Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author So this also means the source is reliable mark nutley (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This business about whether or not Delingpole's blog is a reliable source or not is an unnecessary rabbit hole. It is probably a reliable source for certain kinds of information, such as Delingpole's own opinion, and unreliable for others. None of this matters because the blog-post-slash-article says nothing of substance about the Bishop Hill blog. I would argue that if Delingpole published an article about the Bishop Hill blog then it would carry some weight here, but the kind of mention-in-passing he actually provides has no worth here. ChrisO said "it's a trivial tangential passing mention" and I completely agree with him. Thparkth (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

[21] The Wikipedia community has accepted newspaper blogs written by professional journalists as acceptable sources for articles. Having authored seven, non-self-published books, Delingpole is definitely a professional journalist. He can be used with attribution. If anyone still wishes to dispute this, we can take it to WP:RSN, where they're probably getting accustomed to questions coming from the AGW topic, or do a content RfC, or both. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Delingpole's blog doesn't show up in Factiva's database - although the rest of the Telegraph's news and opinion does - so it appears that the Telegraph itself treats it differently from the rest of its content. But Thparkth is right that its reliability is a side issue. The central issue is that it is merely a statement of Delingpole's opinion about one particular post on the blog and tells us nothing about the blog itself. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, so what we have is an article in a wp:rs which tells plenty about the blog as the article is lifted from the bolg. We have a professional journalist and author mentioning were he got the story from, and linking to the bishop hill blog so readers can go see the original story for themselves. And you still think it is a trivial passing mention? Looks like RFC time then mark nutley (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Go on then, what does it tell us about the blog? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It tells us the blog is taken seriously enough to not only warrant mention in a national newspaper but is considered good enough to lift a story from. The author of the newspaper article links to the blog and mentions in by name, this tells us he considers it notable. But as it is painfully obvious to all now you have no intention of allowing content into this article as you want it deleted. So tell me, will it have to be an RFC for every single thing here? mark nutley (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's plainly going to require an RFC for everything because you aren't listening to anyone other than yourself. As has been said repeatly before, all Delingpole is doing is promoting a blog post from BH - he is not telling us anything about the blog itself. You, on the other hand, are clearly making inferences - in other words, original research, which isn't permitted. And it's not "in a national newspaper", it's in a polemical blog hoste by said newspaper - a very different thing. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It's clear that there is very little independent notability for this blog. The handful of sources that have been added tell us very little about the blog itself, but only describe the authors' opinion of Andrew Montford or of particular things that he has posted. As the blog is essentially a vehicle for Andrew Montford's writings, it is inextricable from its author, who has received some degree of coverage from independent published sources. I therefore propose to merge this article into Andrew Montford. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This has already been tried and rejected, don`t you think it a tad early to do it again? mark nutley (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, there was a clear majority in favour of either deletion or merging so we need to decide what we do now with this article. Don't forget that I was in favour of deletion, so merging is a compromise. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I see eight saying keep. Six saying delete or merge. Were exactly is this clear majority? mark nutley (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I also don't see any consensus to merge and Admin Sandstein actually mentioned that in his AFD closure thatthere was no consensus for the deleting or the merging. Off2riorob (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus that this is notable either. In such situations, articles are kept by default, but no one should think that the blog's notability or the appropriateness of a stand alone article is "settled" or that merger/deletion proposals have been outright rejected. No consensus means no consensus--we didn't decide anything. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course merge it. It has no notability apart from its creator.ScottyBerg (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree clear merge. Coverage of the blog itself is very minor and insignificant in the sources. It is much less significant than the coverage of it's creator. Polargeo (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

Is the following text usable to show Wp:Notability. Does the reference also contain more than a trivial mention of the blog Bishop Hill?

James Delingpole writing in his blog for the Telegraph wrote "Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen."

Involved editors

• Trivial. Just a passing mention, tells nothing about the blog.Yilloslime ^T_C 15:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Even "trivia" might be too strong a word. It's really just a hat tip. Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• On the same principle, should we document every time Delingpole gives a tip of the hat to some other blogger? Literally the only information it gives us about Bishop Hill is the name of the blog. I suspect though that the mention of Bishop Hill isn't the purpose of including this quotation. WP:QUOTEFARM: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." -- ChrisO (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Two points not made so far

For the first: This is a "blog" is usable as an WP:RS. Read this: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." and Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-3 that states "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted only on the websites of news organizations are subject to the same standards expected of that organization's print editions (see Plunkett, John. "Rod Liddle censured by the PCC", The Guardian, March 30, 2010). Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.". So yes what Delingpole writes on his blog at The Telegraph should be attributed to him, but can be used as an WP:RS.

Secondly: The paragraph proposed to be included seems for me to be fully covered by the WP:RS source. Is it relevant to include in the article? Yes it pinpoints the Blog as a source for describing "limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal". So it's highly relevant and it's quite political (why people will throw it out I assume. We're still not naming the article Climategate). Nsaa (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• ignore - if anything, I thought we could use the original BH post as a source for info on BH's views. But (apart from the headline) the post appears to be a nullity. This is indicative of a non-notable blog that should be merged William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• Omit. One blogger praising another blogger. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't for the life of me figure out what the heck this Wikipedia article is about. It's about nothing notable at all. And the link isn't worth the bandwidth to include. This article doesn't deserve a separate life. (Taivo (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC))
• Keep WP:VS deems "blogs" from newspapers to fall into a separate class from blogs in general. There is, moreover, a tad too much "I don't like it" going on here. . Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted only on the websites of news organizations are subject to the same standards expected of that organization's print editions (see Plunkett, John. "Rod Liddle censured by the PCC", The Guardian, March 30, 2010). appears to cover the case in point. Collect (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Article protected

Following a request from Marknutley at my talkpage regarding a source that some parties regard as reliable and relevant, and others do not, and reviewing both the talkpage and edit history, I have protected the page until there is a consensus (rather than an argument) on the appropriateness of the source - and whether it should be deleted or merged (and I note that there has already been an afd that resulted in no consensus - defaulting to keep - so I suggest that a new afd is made to include any argument that was not presented in the earlier one; consensus needs to be changed before the article may be merged or deleted). As regards the source, I suggest a fresh RfC is formed and outside parties views requested - I see little other than the usual split down the usual lines. Perhaps a third opinion may be another avenue to consider. When there is a consensus, the protection may be lifted without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Full prot for an article with ?3? reverts in the last 5 days looks well over the top. OTOH is *was* a request from MN William M. Connolley (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Not quite, i asked LHVU to look into the removal of reliably sourced material. And what was to be done about this. I suppose with it locked now nothing will ever get done. mark nutley (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not a normal rationale for protection. Guettarda (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

So which source are you talking about? Orlowski, Harrabin or Delingpole? Or that matter, the second paragraph, which seems rather off-topic. I'd say keep them all out and delete the second paragraph. Guettarda (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the sources you guys have edit warred out are reliable, and you refuse to let the content remain mark nutley (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole's unreliable. The lot are irrelevant. Guettarda (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am so bored of having this same conversation whenever delingpole comes up, His blog is reliable, so give up saying it`s not. And the BBC The Guardian and The Register are not irrelevant mark nutley (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, his blog has been brought up at RSN and found to be unreliable. If you're bored with the argument, stop making claims that have been demonstrated to be false. As for the latter bit - in fact, as for all of it - the issue isn't reliability, it's relevance. Guettarda (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope per [22] community consensus he most certainly is reliable. All the sources that were removed shoed relevance to the blog mark nutley (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Village Pump? I didn't even know there was such a thing. Is that a definitive dispute-resolution board? I thought the appropriate venue was the reliable sources noticeboard. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Village pump thread referenced by Nutley makes no mention of Delingpole, and I'm not seeing much consensus there about the general reliability of newspaper-hosted blogs. Are you sure you've got the right link? And I can't find the RSN thread on Delingpole mentioned by Guettarda--can you provide a link? I do think that a "ruling" specifically on Delingpole "trumps" a general VP discussion on blogs though, unless the RSN thread happened a long time ago and views on blogs have changed substantial since then. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that you need better sourcing for a BLP than a blogger on something as controversial as this. I'm surprised to see the article frozen in this state, when there has been little fighting underway, mostly discussion on the talk page, no big row in the article proper. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a BLP, were does not even come from? And for gods sake, delingpole is a professional journo, and author. He is a reliable so long as attributed, why must this be repeated constantly? mark nutley (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The BLP is Philip Campbell. As currently frozen in its reduced state, he is the primary subject of the article. The policy applies to all articles. My concerns regarding this blog are much the same as I have raised concerning DeSmogBlog, which approaches CC from the opposite perspective. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an inconsistency here. In the article on Philip Campbell, no reference is made to the alleged role of this blog. The discussion in the article on him is considerably milder than the one here, which highlights his being supposedly forced out. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, i had not thought to add to his blp, i`ll do it in a minute mark nutley (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Argh! And i've just removed it.[23] It's bad enough that you blow up the importance of the blog here, but to do so in other articles is coatracking. I'm rather stunned that you'd make such an edit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that it's also a gratuitous slap at Sir Muir Russell (whoever he is). I agree about the Campbell article. Shall we extent this battle into Sir Muir's article too, if since he has one? Really now. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly these articles (DeSmogBlog, Bishop Hill, etc) should be removed or merged - since the sourcing in them is abysmal. (and the DeSmogBlog is even one of the better ones). They seem to be used to "validate" the source, so that information from these unreliable sources, can be sneaked in the backdoor. (sorry for the assumption of bad faith). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'd like to know what those "etcetras" are, too. I stumbled on one other, but are there more? I do know that blog articles in general are pretty bad. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blog articles are often poor simply because they tend to be written by fans who overestimate the importance of their favourite blog and - consciously or otherwise - end up acting as cheerleaders for it. That seems to be the case here (Marknutley appears to be a regular poster on Bishop Hill). -- ChrisO (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't attest to your statement on Mark, but as a general principle people should not be editing articles on websites, including blogs, in which they are involved. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, do you mean marknutley is a regular writer of blog posts for Bishop Hill, or a regular commenter? The first would indicate a conflict of interest, the second not so much IMHO. Thparkth (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A commenter - sorry for the confusion. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Time to deal with the root problem

It's regrettable and unnecessary that the article has been locked in its current state. Unfortunately it's unlikely that there is going to be much agreement here, simply because the root problem is not being dealt with – namely Marknutley's unacceptably poor editing and pig-headed obstinacy. I propose to address that.

Marknutley joined Wikipedia in December 2009 and immediately began making contentious edits to climate change articles. He has been blocked numerous times and subjected to various restrictions as a result of his edit warring and disruption of articles. His writing and research skills are poor, and he appears to regard Wikipedia's sourcing policies as merely optional. He stuffs articles (including BLPs) with trivia from blogs and other unreliable sources, making assumptions about sources which he appears to make no effort to check. He exhibits a constant strong ideological bias. He shows no sign of improving despite extensive feedback from others. He consistently rejects or ignores advice and digs in, refusing to concede any error.

This simply isn't acceptable. I've come across editors like him before who have wasted vast amounts of the community's time before the inevitable topic or site ban. I will therefore be putting together a user conduct RfC and I will be pushing for, at the minimum, a mentor to be found or appointed for Marknutley and a (voluntary?) timeout from the climate change topic area for a defined period so that he can learn about editing in a less difficult area of the project. If a mentor isn't found or mentoring is unsuccessful, then I will take the case either to the CC sanctions enforcement page or to the full Arbitration Committee – I haven't yet decided – seeking either a topic ban or a full site ban.

If other editors have any diffs of particularly egregious conduct that should be included in the RfC, please let me know. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There's an even rootier problem that I've tried to tackle in an essay.[24] Comments and feedback on that are welcome. However, I agree with you that this article should not be frozen in this state, where it is mainly aimed at a third party based on what a blog says.ScottyBerg (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point about a large part of the article being a WP:COATRACK about at third party, I've removed that paragraph as inappropriate, now that the article has been unprotected. This article should be about the blog rather than about passing mentions of it when discussing other topics, particularly WP:BLP topics. . . dave souza, talk 06:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You're generally correct about the issues you've identified (I'll give you more feedback elsewhere) but you've missed an essential point - a lot of the problems are being caused by people simply being bad editors. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if Marknutley was not an incompetent researcher or if he was willing to concede that he, an editor of five months or so, might be wrong and editors with a collective editing history of decades might be right. It's unfortunate that other more experienced editors who share his POV haven't seen fit to advise him when he goes off the rails, but I'm hopeful that a mentor might be able to help there. Of course, this requires that he is willing to listen and learn - attributes that he hasn't shown so far. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. I'd really love to hear your views, and those of others. You know, I focused on process mainly because I don't know the personalities. They're just kind of an amorphous mass to me at present. But also I think that sometimes a focus on process can help deal with personnel issues. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris, this is not really proper here. While the concerns may have merit, they belong on the enforcement pages or in an RfC/U. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, Kim. dave souza, talk 06:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I could just have said "don't waste your time, he won't listen to anyone here" but that wouldn't have been constructive now, would it? At any rate, I suggest that if people have followup queries they should direct them to my user talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are some diff`s for you chris, Chriso`s diff`s [25] Blanks an article he is trying to have deleted [26] Reverts same material out saying it is unreliably sourced. Sources he removed are The Register the The Guardian the BBC, James Delingpole a professional journalist and author who also writes for The Daily Telegraph [27] Reverts same material out again. [28] Reverts again [29] Reverts again [30] Reverts again And you say it is me who is the problem here? I think not mark nutley (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection lifted

Please do not start revert warring, no matter how slow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea.

Question: is there a long version of this article? I'm going back, and all I see is one with some media mentions, plus this stuff on the Nature editor quitting. Is merger still a live possibility? This is a short article, and in its current form it doesn't seem sustainable. There was no consensus on the AfD. Can't it simply be merged? ScottyBerg (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

[31] This is the version i moved into mainspace. There was no consensus for either a deletion nor a merge in the AFD, this article would look ok if content was not constantly removed mark nutley (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's all there's ever been, I'm afraid. The sourcing for this article has always been very, very thin. You'll note that the version that Marknutley refers to above is merely a series of brief mentions - nothing substantive about the blog itself - which is the reason why they were pruned out in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This article really has got to go. It being here represents a failure in the system. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this version is fine. This article is the first time that I've seen editors arguing that the article's size should be reduced because, in their opinion, the sources don't focus sufficiently on this particular topic. In my experience, any reliable source which provides information on the topic is fine. I think that our goal here is to increase the size and content of our articles (with the exception, perhaps of BLPs), not try to find ways to keep information out. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should strive to improve the quality and depth of coverage, not to simply increase article size, though I generally agree with your sentiment that "any reliable source which provides information on the topic is fine." I just don't think that the disputed sources provide any information on the topic itself, i.e. the Bishop Hill blog. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked Dave souza (talk · contribs), ChrisO (talk · contribs) and Cla68 (talk · contribs) 24 hours each for blanking content, redirecting the remaining article, and reverting the aforementioned within 24 hours of my protecting and unprotecting the article, on the basis that there was an edit war and no seeking of consensus or comment on this page. I am happy to have my actions reviewed, and have notified each of the editors. I suppose I shall also notify the general CC Probation readership when I find the right page. I am very disappointed to have needed to take these actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• Question With the "main combatants" currently blocked (nutley, Cla, ChrisO, souza) where does that leave the rest of us. I get the feeling if I edit the page, I'll be blocked, but with just about everyone blocked, we can't really have a talk page discussion. What to do, what to do.... Yilloslime ^T_C 15:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that as long as you don't revert the article you should be fine. One other clear avenue for you to be fine is to suggest your change on this page first and wait for broad agreement, or make a bold edit (not a revert) to the article with a clear promise to self-revert on request, or a blessing for any others to revert you on request without fear of it being called "revert warring." I further suggest that if you are blocked after attempting any of the above avenues, the blocking admin would be in for a world of hurt. Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that Yilloslime has made a reasonable point. Personally, I'm just not sure what can be satisfactorily done with this article apart from merging it, and that seems to be a blockable offense for some reason. If I felt otherwise, and wanted to flesh out the article, the galaxy of sources is limited and I imagine that would be a blockable offense too. I feel that there are BLP issues with the article as it currently stands, but I'm not going to stick my neck out. Perhaps the blocking administrator could set down some guidelines on where to go from here. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Looking at LessHeardVanU's comment here[32], it appears that our task at present is to reach a consensus on what to do. Seems reasonable. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess my point is, sure we can discuss the page and (hopefully) come to some sort of a consensus, but is that consensus going to mean much if 4 of the loudest voices are excluded from that discussion because they are blocked? (I'm not necessarily arguing for anyone to be unblocked, only noting the odd situation we are in.) Yilloslime ^T_C 16:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right. However, I presume that we won't reach a consensus instantaneously. It will take a few days, right? Once they return, their voices will be heard. They seem to be on 24 hour blocks. Personally I'd like to see them given amnesty if they promise to jaw jaw instead of war war, as Churchill once said. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

How's this sound: move the entire second paragraph in the current version (starting with "Philip Campbell...") to Andrew_Montford#Bishop_Hill, and then turn Bishop Hill (blog) into a redirect to that section. No content lost, just consolidated. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That works, give or take, for me. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about that. Editors have been removing it from the article on the basis of WP:COATRACK, and I tend to agree. I don't see how that stuff is acceptable in Montford, assuming it is not acceptable here. We have "Channel 4 News" saying that it was posted to the blog and that it "will be" an embarassment to the head of the panel. Then we have the Guardian picking up on Channel 4, saying "The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog run by the climate sceptic Andrew Montford and shown on Channel 4 News, risked undermining Muir's claim that the inquiry team was impartial." This seems speculative on the part of Channel 4, whose reliability is unknown to me, and The Guardian then picked up on that and speculating further. We have no definitive reporting that there was a blog-Campbell resigning causality. The sources quoted in the Campbell article (the BBC and a press release) make no mention of the blog. Hence my reservations. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

With the same caveats as Scotty Berg, it works for me. Merge seems to be the bill - the blog is not independently notable. All we have are mentions in passing in various articles (about something different), and as with many of these individually run blogs, its troublesome to separate blog from author with regards to notabilty. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of the deletion debate, and I'm surprised it failed to result in deletion. WP:WEB would seem to require far more than the passing references made regarding this blog in even the longest version of this article. As it stands now, it's just a kind of extended hazing of two living people who are supposedly "embarrassed" by this blog. Merger makes sense as long as we don't take the rotten apple and toss it from this barrel into another. Keep in mind that if that paragraph is gone, that leaves this article with virtually no content. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to find a compromise. While I too don't think we should be highlighting the Philip Campbell stuff to such a great extent--or at all really--in the spirit of compromise, I could live with a merged article as proposed above. And I think that such a merger would be an (minor) improvement over the status quo. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I understand. I'd just be happier if the sourcing was better and less speculative, and if the end product didn't poke this Campbell dude in the eye more than seems necessary. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

We've ended up with an article whose only real content is an attack on Campell, effectively. This seems pointless. The content about Campbell, should go to the Campbell page. If it is unacceptable there (BLP?) it shouldn't be here either William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about this this morning on my way to work, here's what I came up with: In the grand scheme of Campbell's career, I think this flap over the Independent Climate Change Email Review doesn't amount to much. Therefore, if we're going to keep Philip Campbell balanced, then we shouldn't give this incident much, if any, attention in that article. On the other hand, assuming the Guardian and Channel 4's account of events is correct, then this is probably the biggest impact the blog has had on the real world. So if we are going to have an article on the blog, or a subsection of Andrew Montford dedicated to the blog, then it think this does deserve mention there. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of the deletion debate, and I'm surprised it failed to result in deletion - welcome to the GW wars. The split was largely on the expected lines I'm afraid William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to hear your views (and everyone else's, including the editors now in the brig) on an essay I've written on the subject.[33] ScottyBerg (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So whether it belongs on Campbell's bio or not, does anyone disagree that the second para doesn't belong here (or in Montford's bio)? Guettarda (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion in the Campbell article that editors here may want to peruse, as to how to whether to expand or change the previous language. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirm my agreement that it doesn't belong here, for reasons stated previously . . dave souza, talk 19:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus for removal. But given LHvU's apparent decision to "manage" this article, I'm not sure how to proceed. Guettarda (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

LHVU doesn't own this article. Nor, indeed, has he prohibited reverting (which he can't, anyway). If we all agree it doesn't belong, it can come out. Just to be sure, since the second para isn't the second para any more, we're talking about Philip Campbell, the editor in chief of Nature, resigned ... will come as an embarrassment to the enquiry's chair Sir Muir Russell". - yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Per the request at my talkpage by Guettarda, I would make the following comments - firstly, I am not "managing" the article; I am endeavouring to ensure that there is no edit warring following the lifting of the protection. As Marknutley will be unavailable for some time, it might be wise to see if Cla68 (whose block has expired) wants to comment. Secondly, I would also note that a further editor has commenced adding sources, etc., to the article and you may wish to both review whether those are reliable and relevant in your opinion and to invite the contributor, SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), to comment here on these matter. If there are no substantive reasons given for not removing, etc. then there would appear to be consensus. However, I think that there should be opportunity for others to comment. FYI, I have templated SV regarding the CC Probation, following her edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I support SlimVirgin's helpful edits to the article. In my opinion, of the three related articles, Andrew Montford, this one, and The Hockey Stick Illusion, I think the blog is the most clearly notable. Cla68 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like there is broad support for removing this from the article. One editor shouldn't be allowed to block what otherwise would be consensus; or to turn it around: there's obviously no consensus that this material should be in the article. Also, with BLP sensitive material we should be erring on the side of excluding such content when there is a dispute. LVHU, would you do the honors? I think everyone else too afraid to stick their necks out. (I know I am).Yilloslime ^T_C 22:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 - the blog fails all 3 criteria in WP:WEB#Criteria. All that has been dragged up are single line to paragraph mentions in articles that are otherwise about something different. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Mere passing mentions, as has been said before. The only reason why this article has been kept is pure tribalism on the part of certain editors, as someone noted earlier. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The AfD showed otherwise. So, we're wasting our time arguing for merger or deletion. Instead, we need to continue the article's expansion. I'd like to nominate it for Good Article soon. Is everyone here willing and able to help me out? Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The AfD showed absolutely nothing. It ended in "No consensus" which means that we couldn't decide what to do about the article. Such a result doesn't preclude merging, nor does it preclude expanding. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you straight off that I'll strongly oppose any good article nomination. This article is nothing more than a list of a handful of trivial media mentions. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia, let alone as a good article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still for merger, but with the added sources I'm now wondering if maybe we should keep an open mind about the notability of this blog. As long as it's not used as a source for third parties, that would not be the end of the world. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the recently added sources are really not much more than what we had before - trivial passing mentions of the blog's content which don't actually say anything about the blog itself. Bear in mind that what was added is literally the entirety, or pretty close to it, of all the media coverage this blog's received. The bottom line is that it's been mentioned a handful of times, in passing, in a handful of media outlets, with no substantive coverage of the blog itself. The notability issue is still unavoidable, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is still a marginal article at best. I should probably read through the posts I've missed (only about 400 of them). Amazing the attention that has focused on this little runt. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made this point before: there are a lot worse blog articles out there. If every one got a tenth of the attention this one is getting, they'd be a whole lot better. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Desperate?

I think that

In November 2009, James Delingpole wrote in a Daily Telegraph blog that Bishop Hill had reported the funding of the Climate Outreach and Information Network charity—to the tune of £700,000 over two years—by the British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

is a bit of a desperate claim-to-fame. A blog (assoc with the Torygraph) reports that another blog has reported that a charity has been funded by DEFRA. Why is this notable? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Especially when said Delingpole blog describes DEFRA as: "the dismal branch of the UK government responsible for murdering livestock, destroying agriculture, persecuting farmers etc". I doubt seriously if it is a reliable source - and aside from Delingpole's word, there is no indication at all that it "came to the public attention". So yes, rather desperate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We're also back to the coatracking, where it is not actually the blog that is being described, but content that has appeared on the blog... focusing on issues, rather than the blog. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's stretching the definition of coatracking. Delingpole's, and newspaper blogs are considered reliable sources, as I pointed out above, reporting is significant because he shows that the blog broke this news. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, actually it is not "stretching the definition" - none of the added references are actually about the blog - they are about content that has been on the blog. The Dennis item for instance is not cited to the blog - and the only mention is a sentence saying "It is understood Mr Dennis has been instructed not to talk to the media, but he posted his account of the interview on a British website run by climate change sceptic Andrew Montford." and that is all the mention in total in the ref given. I've marked this with "not in citation given" since i have no idea whether Montford has other blogs - the reference doesn't give Bishop Hill as the place.

We can't just "blow up" the importance or notability of some blog - by taking articles that only mention it in passing and relate the issues/content to that. That is classic coatracking. Do please also read all of the discussions that have preceeded this. I am certainly not alone in this estimation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is really tendentious stuff, particularly after all the previous discussions. What has any of the material that's been added got to do with the blog itself, as opposed to content that's been on it? These merely just passing mentions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I might add that under the logic that is being pursued here, every time this blog is mentioned by the media it should be logged here on this article. The article as it stands says almost nothing about the blog itself; almost every factoid that has been added is simply a reference to when some other source has mentioned it. Compare this article to an actually well-written blog article, Talking Points Memo, which provides information on the history, authorship, remit and activities of the blog. That is useful information. A list of media mentions is not. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits by SlimVirgin

Without engaging in the talk page discussion, SlimVirgin readded the Delingpole reference, albeit with reworded text. Clearly, there's no consensus for this material to be in the article, as demonstrated by the extensive discussion(s) above. I propose that s/he self-revert and join the discussion. (I'd jsust remove it myself, but I don't need to be blocked.) Yilloslime ^T_C 22:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I'm curious as to why SlimVirgin, an editor who as far as I know doesn't normally edit in this topic area, hasn't edited this article before and hasn't participated in the talk page discussions, has suddenly started editing here. Who's been saying what to who off-wiki? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, which is why i've reinstated the tags... I don't need to get blocked either. I've removed the material that failed WP:SELFPUB though. Using Montfords own words to state that the blog is "..is described as one of the main websites for global warming sceptics in the UK" is simply too blatant a violation to let sit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And if i had any doubts about coatracking, this[34] dispelled it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Coatracking accusations, accusations of off wiki collaboration... just looks like article improvement to me. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Delingpole reference wouldn't be a reliable source (or at the very least significant undue weight) in the COIN article, nor would the blog, so put it here instead, and make a "See Also" to the blog, which has absolutely no relevance to COIN, except for one blog-posting. That seems like pretty clear coatracking to me. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This looks increasingly bad. I've removed that link - there is no way that we would allow the use of a blog as a source on a third party, as SlimVirgin knows perfectly well, so the link is totally inappropriate. I've asked her to explain her edits. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Its just a harmless little stub about a silly blog, its not going to change anything at all in the real world at all, one of the things I find is a good thing to remember is that what is written on this wikipedia is more or less irrelevant, no one puts any store on it, why not just take it off your watchlist if you don't like it? Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

So why are you here, if you think it's so unimportant? -- ChrisO (talk)

Chris asked me to explain my edits. First, I haven't discussed this with anyone offwiki. It's not an area I normally edit in. It caught my attention because of the recent discussion about it onwiki, and I saw it was a little untidy and unreferenced, so I added some material and tidied some refs. [35] I'm concerned to see that some of this has been cut already, [36] though it's all properly referenced by mainstream reliable sources. Kim's point that the material is about the content of the blog, not the blog itself, is a little odd. This is a blog that has recently been referenced by The Guardian, the Spectator, The Daily Telegraph, and Channel 4 News, organizations that have differing political views but that are all mainstream and high quality. It's unusual for blogs to be mentioned so often, and there's no reason for us not to include that material in the article.

I also added the blog to a couple other articles, because someone had added the orphan tag, but Kim and Chris have removed those mentions. [37] [38]

Editors can't reasonably claim an article isn't notable while at the same time removing references that illustrate its notability, or add the orphan tag while removing mention of it in other articles.

Chris, the news organizations that mentioned the blog are the sources, so it's compliant with BLP to mention the blog's role. We're also allowed to use the blog as a direct source per V (so long as not about living people), because the author has been published independently on this subject, and is viewed by the media and parliament as an expert on climate-change skepticism. V says: "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your edits. Similar views on the relevance of these sources to the topic have been expressed by others, and failed to gain consensus. Would you consider self-reverting? Yilloslime ^T_C 23:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I wouldn't want to self-revert, as the material is relevant and properly sourced. I'm concerned that some of it has been reverted already, so I've asked LHVU what the rules of engagement are. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but your opinions are no more important than anyone else's, and they're in the minority. We (claim to) work by consensus, not minority/majority rule, and there's no consensus to include this in the article. So you should self-revert and then seek consensus here. You are big fish, so if your opinions are "right", then it should be easy for you to convince others. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We work by following the content policies, YS. We then seek consensus in areas where the policies offer no guidance. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Content policies also include WP:UNDUE - and all this material can summarize to is: "...has been mentioned in mainstream media, as ...." (refs given). None of the content (as said before) is about the blog but about issues that the blog has touched. Most mentions are in passing (except for the Delingpole ones - and it is really doubtful if those constitute reliable sources - at the very least they raise significant WP:REDFLAG's). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions for Kim

Could Kim please explain why the Telegraph is an unreliable source, why he added the "not in citation given" tag to the Daily Mail paragraph, and why he removed the Hansard reference? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the various comments given here on talk - i've explained each and everyone of these. But let me be specific on one of these: The so called "Hansard" reference (the only thing i've removed)[39] is written by Montford himself... It is in effect a self-published source, since the HoC panel had an open request for memorandums, and every memorandum was published there. It fails WP:SELFPUB by "unduly self-serving". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also not from Hansard. It's something that Montford wrote himself and that was republished without comment, along with every other submission received by a House of Commons Select Committee, as an annex to a report of that committee. Montford played no part whatsoever in the deliberations of the committee. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that every single submission was published, Chris? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Para 15 of the report states that they received 58 submissions.Here is where 57 submissions are listed (the discrepancy isn't explained - I suspect a typo). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what's meant by self-published source. This is a statement published by the British parliament. If you prefer we can make clear in the sentence that it comes from Montford himself, but that's a question of tweaking, not removing. And even if it were a self-published source, these are allowed in articles about themselves (and elsewhere too; see WP:V).

As for the Telegraph, it is a reliable source, whether it calls its articles "blogs" or "columns." WP:V covers this too:

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted only on the websites of news organizations are subject to the same standards expected of that organization's print editions (see Plunkett, John. "Rod Liddle censured by the PCC", The Guardian, March 30, 2010) ...

I'd therefore appreciate it if you could return Hansard, and remove the tag from the Telegraph material. Can you explain the Daily Mail issue? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not from Hansard. How many times do I have to say this? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It was published by parliament; it's not self-published. Why are people being so aggressive, as a matter of interest? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know; perhaps it's because all the extensive previous discussions have been ignored and these changes of yours were made without any prior discussion here? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing aggression against others too, whether they've been discussing the issues or not. If everyone who turns up here is going to be snapped at, reasonable people will wander off, and that won't be good for the article. Seriously, guys, this is an article about a blog. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but whatever happened to discussing contentious changes before making them? It's not as if you're adding something new and exciting. Just about everything you're adding has been discussed at length and there's no been any consensus to include it. If anything, good progress was being made (under #Merge proposal above), which you've just blown up. Might I ask if you actually read this talk page before editing the article? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was adding anything contentious, Chris. I saw an almost empty article about a blog. I found source material and added it. This is bog-standard editing, and if the climate-change situation on WP has reached the point where a person can't make edits like this anymore in an article that's practically empty, I hope someone will soon take the issue to ArbCom. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're pretty much admitting there that you hadn't read the talk page and therefore didn't realise the contentiousness of the material you were adding. If you're intervening in an article, it's always a good idea to see what's been happening on the talk page. That's part of what you call "bog-standard editing", or at least that part of it which is outlined at WP:CONSENSUS. It's not a matter of not being able to "make edits like this anymore"; it's simply a question of doing due diligence to make sure that what you're doing is in line with the current consensus. You didn't do that, which is why you're (quite understandably) getting flak now. It's the kind of situation that needs to be approached with tact and consensus-building, not jumping in with both feet and then wondering why people aren't happy with you. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm tapping my nose right now, because that's where you've hit it. Well said. 02:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I will not return "Hansard" (why you insist on calling it that is curious) since that fails WP:SELFPUB as "unduely self-serving" as stated before. There is no editorial review evident here - and it is per content policies your responsibility to convince us that it is a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if it were entirely self-published, it would still be an RS, because the article is about his blog. Please read V on this issue. All you had to do was tweak the sentence to make clear he was the person behind the description. WMC added the same source; you didn't remove it then. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly isn't even close to a reliable source for the information that you cited it for. WP:V is very clear on that, we cannot cite the owner of the blog for material that is unduely selfserving. You will have to find an independent secondary reliable source for such material. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not unduly self-serving to say that it is a website for global-warming sceptics. Do you object to even that description of it? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You can certainly find secondary reliable sources that state that - so there is no need to rely on Montford's own estimation. The content that you added was not just that it was a climate sceptic blog - but that it was "...one of the main websites for global warming sceptics in the UK.", which is unduely self-serving. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As for Delingpole - please do read the policy that you quote - it says "may be acceptable", not "is acceptable". The Delingpole reference raises significant WP:REDFLAG's. Amongst others by calling DEFRA: "the dismal branch of the UK government responsible for murdering livestock, destroying agriculture, persecuting farmers etc". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally (as i've stated elsewhere on talk) - Bishop Hill is not mentioned in the Daily Mail (perhaps it is about this blog - but i don't know if Montford has other blogs) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

They don't mention it by name, but it's clear that's what they mean. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Erm? I thought we had policies that ensured that "it's clear" is not enough? Let me see WP:OR seems to fit the bill. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim, you're not allowed to reject a mainstream journalist writing for a mainstream newspaper because you don't like what he writes. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bait not taken - I'm rather indifferent as to what Delingpole writes, i'm applying content policy. Its a newspaper blog, and we have no evidence of editorial control - the blog makes extremely contentious claims, that are certainly extremely fringe - or do you argue that claiming that DEFRA is mainly about "murdering livestock, destroying agriculture, persecuting farmers etc." isn't a fringe viewpoint? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which country you live in. I can tell you that the Telegraph is a high-quality newspaper, Delingpole is one of its respected writers, the blog is of course under its editorial control (you think it might publish it otherwise?), and the view that DEFRA mishandled the mad-cow situation and other farming controversies is practically universal. You're not applying policy, Kim, with respect, but your own opinions. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry SV, but while i am living in Denmark, i do follow british media - and the Delingpole blog is not widely considered a respectable source for factual information [please show me wrong] - Delingpole's writing here is polemic. You are dodging the issue - which is that the Delingpole blog is making contentious claims that are extremely fringe. The Telegraph's reliability does not automatically "rub off" to blog content that they carry. Nor does it do so to material produced in other opinion sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The world has turned upside down if someone is calling The Daily Telegraph and James Delingpole fringe. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Daily Telegraph is a mainstream outlet. However, it has two contributors - James Delingpole and Christopher Booker - who publish extreme fringe views about matters of science. Fringe material can't be laundered into mainstreamness merely by virtue of where it is published; it's fringe-y in its own right. Interestingly enough, Delingpole's blog is only available on the Telegraph's website - it's not printed and it's also not archived by news archives such as Factiva, which indicates that the Telegraph itself doesn't regard it as part of the newspaper's content. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll write to the Telegraph to ask about the blog's status. But it's normal for some material to be made available only on newspapers' websites. As our policy and the British Press Complaints Commission make clear, that does not affect editorial responsibility. Calling a column a "blog" doesn't change its status—the Telegraph is publishing it, and under its own name. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see you demonstrate that these views are "fringe" considering a significant portion of the population seems to think they're true. For a view to be "fringe", a tiny minority of the population must accept it. I doubt you'd refer to Christianity as a "fringe religion", would you? No, you wouldn't. So no, Delingpole does not an "extreme fringe view". Macai (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is DEFRA really amongst a "significant" portion of the population described best as "murdering livestock, destroying agriculture, persecuting farmers etc."? Interesting viewpoint. [and no, it is not undue focus on a particular phrase - it is from that particular article, and the particular section where BH is mentioned] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, a company of 9,000 in a population of well over 60,000,000 is not a "significant portion of the population". However, 41% is.[40] That's right. 41% of the U.S. population believes that the whole AGW thing is exaggerated. I sincerely doubt that a portion of the population that high can be considered an "extreme fringe" view (that is, a very fringe view). Describing this common a view as "extreme fringe" is like describing a gallon jug at 40% capacity "almost entirely empty". Sorry, but that line of reasoning doesn't hold water. Macai (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the price of milk? We are talking about a specific Delingpole blog posting, where he is making fringe claims about DEFRA. This has nothing to do with whether global warming is exaggerated or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, Wikipedia has gone downhill if some hack's blog is now a "reputable source". WTF. ChrisO has nailed it. Extreme views don't become mainstream just because some guy blogs it at the Tele instead of at his own blog. A wanker is still a wanker. Grace Note (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Second sentence

Kim removed:

It is described as one of the main websites for global warming sceptics in the UK.

Sourced to: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. "Memorandum submitted by Andrew Montford", The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Hansard, Session 2009-2010, retrieved 6 May 2010.

May I return this as "Montford describes it as one of the main websites for global warming sceptics in the UK"? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good me. As long as it's clear that this is Montford's opinion I'm good with it. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this? It is not a Hansard publication.. Please try to get this right. -- 02:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisO (talk • contribs)

Maybe I'm missing somehting, the way it's currently referenced, there's no mention of it being a Hansard pub. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin seems to have addressed my concern - the original reference above referred to Hansard, which was the focus of my comment. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that the blog author's unsubstantiated description of his own blog has any place in the article, and certainly not in the beginning of the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed

If anything is clear from all this discussion, it's that there's simply no consensus that this material belongs in the article. I won't reiterate my objection to this material or that of others, as it's all laid out in gory detail repeatedly above. I'll just say that: something can be reliably sourced but not worth mentioning, either because it's off topic, WP:COATRACKy, etc. Please find consensus--(!or a least majority support)--if you'd like to have this stuff in there. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

NB: As I said in my edit summary, I'll self revert upon request. I think I said if requested by an "uninvolved party", but let me change that to "anyone". Yilloslime ^T_C 02:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yilloslime, there was no consensus to remove it either. Cla68 (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, but the burden to find consensus is on the those editors seeking to include contentious material. We don't throw whatever we want into an article, and then require that there be consensus for removal before taking it out. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm requesting that you revert yourself, YS. Parking here the material you removed in the meantime: [41]

The blog has come to public attention several times in connection with the global warming debate. In November 2009, James Delingpole wrote in a Daily Telegraph blog that Bishop Hill had reported the funding of the Climate Outreach and Information Network charity—to the tune of £700,000 over two years—by the British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

In February 2010, the Daily Mail reported that Paul Dennis, a British climate scientist, had posted an account on Bishop Hill of his interview with police concerning their investigation into the unauthorized release of emails in November 2009 from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I said I would so I will, but could you please explain why you think you're opinion should trump that of just about everyone else here (Cla excluded). Please address the weight/COATRACK issue rather than falling back on the specious argument that the sourcing is reliable. Also I request that you explain how consensus works: Is it proper procedure to put contentious material in an article and then require consensus before it's removed, or should one build consensus first, then insert the material. Thanks.Yilloslime ^T_C 02:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to return the material. It's not my opinion, it's the policies. V says that these are reliable sources, so we would need a good reason to keep them out, especially in a very short article that needs expanding. As for consensus, I don't know how it functions on a page like this. All I know is that people arriving at the page shouldn't be insulted. Where that's happening, consensus kind of breaks down, so it's best just to stick to the content policies very rigidly. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that you haven't answered my questions; I'd expected more of an admin and prolific editor. We both know that it isn't as simple as --to paraphrase the argument i'm hearing--"all verifiable factoids from reliable sources must be included in an article." WP:NPOV is also a policy, albeit more difficult one to apply than WP:RS, and the sub-policy of WP:WEIGHT must be dealt with. And we both know that this isn't supposed be how consensus works, either. Yilloslime ^T_C 03:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree and I share your disappointment, particularly as I've worked constructively with SlimVirgin on other articles. Consensus-building was already underway in #Merge Proposal above. That has now been completely disrupted. The responsible approach would have been to contribute to that discussion and come to an amicable conclusion about what content to include. Now we're back to square one, and further needless controversy has been generated. All this could have been avoided with a more tactful approach that took account of the current discussions. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And this entire thing could be avoided if people would (a) stick to the content polices, and (b) stop discussing other editors. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail

I can't find where Kim objected to the D/Mail paragraph on the grounds that the Mail didn't actually name the blog (simply described it), but I've tweaked the sentence so it says what the source says, [42] though I wish Kim had just done that himself instead of tagging. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Requirement to read article talkpages?

I have made this point elsewhere, but unless there is a policy or guideline that insists anyone who wishes to edit an article is required to review the talkpage (and presumably the history, just in case) that I am unaware of - possible, but I have been looking - making such assertions is bollocks. I would draw people's attention to the article as SlimVirgin would likely have found it, with particular note to the second sentence within the template, where the talkpage option is the second one. To question someone's motives for wishing to edit an article (per AGF it is because they wish to improve the encyclopedia) and then upbraid them for not immersing themselves within the culture of the particular editing environment before doing so is frankly laughable. I suggest that the established editors here review their (initial) comments and ask themselves if they were likely to be conducive toward producing a good editing environment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

New source

Ian Dale's Guide to Political Blogging appears to be a reliable source and includes some information on this blog. Hopefully, we can get this information added to the article soon. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I looked at this. It's just a biographical profile in three short paragraphs of Andrew Montford himself. It's also rather old (2007); it says nothing whatsoever about the anti-climate science activism for which the blog is now used, so I presume it was written before Montford turned it into an anti-science blog. It actually says nothing at all about the blog itself but describes Montford's background and his reasons for getting into blogging. It might well be relevant (though I'm not sure it's current) to Andrew Montford but it's not at all relevant here. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be relevant to the "Founder" or "Background" section. In order to get this article up to Good Article standard, it would need to have one of those sections. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This article has no chance whatsoever of getting to GA status, given the paucity of content. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that? You didn't know about Dale's book until I brought it up here. How are you so sure? Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure because (I guess unlike certain other people I could mention) I've actually made an effort to find reliably sourced material about the blog itself, as opposed to these passing mentions that have been added to fluff up the article. It's only been mentioned a handful of times in passing by the media. Dale's mention of it is nothing more than a brief biographical summary of the blogger, with negligible and out of date info about the blog itself. With that kind of extremely thin sourcing it blatantly fails WP:WEB, let alone the good article criteria. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I was able, with help, to get DeSmogBlog to Good Article with similar sourcing. Wouldn't you at least like to try? Couldn't we build the article up as much as possible, as SlimVirgin just helped to do, with the sources available, and then see what an independent Good Article reviewer thinks? Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think DeSmogBlog deserves Good Article status as it currently stands, since there's too much fluff in there. But that's a side issue. The bottom line with this article is that the sourcing is hopelessly weak and tangential to the blog itself. DeSmogBlog actually tells us something about the blog. Here, the equivalent of DeSmogBlog#Notable issues or media mentions comprises the entire article - and they're not even "notable" media mentions, they're literally every media mention, the entire handful of them. The article would be more accurately titled List of media mentions of the Bishop Hill blog. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know, the first page says "Supported by APCO worldwide" which makes me suspicious. APCO is PR firm that's worked with the Tobacco Industry... I can't actually see the page you linked to, so I have no comment on whether how significant BH's coverage in the book is. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yilloslime, if you could send me your email address via my email link [43] I can send you the text. I wouldn't mind a second opinion on it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

General comment, and with the caveat that I have not read the voluminous comments since I last looked in: the article is definitely fleshier, and I see no glaring problems. However, I think there is too much on Campbell. I also would like to remind everybody east of the pond that "Channel 4" means nothing in the U.S. Every major city has one. I'm still not satisfied that the British Channel 4 is any more reliable than the numerous, sometimes tacky TV websites that we have in the states. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Britain's Channel 4 News - the source in this case - has a very strong reputation as one of Britain's best news broadcasters. You don't need to worry on that score. Bear in mind that we only have three main TV news broadcasters in this country, namely the BBC, Sky News and ITN (who produce Channel 4 News). -- ChrisO (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, it may be good to make that clear to the U.S. readers that this is the supremo British Ch. 4. Most US readers will just think, "what? A TV station website"? ScottyBerg (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

General comment

I just looked over the comments, and I have a suggestion. Rather than squabble over every single source, why don't we just concede, just for the sake of argument, that they are OK and reliable sources? I think that even if you do so, a good case for merger can be made. I wonder whether it's really necessary to expend such energy over every single source being proposed here for this article, when at the end of the day these don't seem to stack up to very much and the article probably should be merged. Do you think that is possible? ScottyBerg (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ScottyBerg. I am not particularly bothered about the current state of the sources. However, this article is horribly WP:Coatracky. It takes the most minor mention of the blog and becomes a coatrack for Montford's position. The blog mentions in the sources are so utterly minor and insignificant that it is a clear merge candidate. Polargeo (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is what I've saying all along. But just to clarify: "reliably sourced" doesn't automatically mean "should be included in the article." Whether this article is merged or not (and my !vote is for merging), we still need to guard against it being a WP:COATRACK. WP:NPOV is policy and needs to inform our content decisions, and sometimes that means we exclude factoids even when they are impeccably sourced. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is easier to deal with coatracking and NPOV when it is not across multiple articles. Polargeo (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There does seem to be a similar situation in several articles. Much of it seems to do with this Campbell fellow. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Scotty's right. Building this article up with reliable sources is separate from the issue of whether the material would in the end be better merged elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something, we're all in agreement, right? Yilloslime ^T_C 19:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I see a lot of comments from people who don't like the sourcing. I'm not saying the sources are good or bad, myself, I just would like to cut to the chase on this thing. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem arises because some people want to see it gone for political reasons. It confuses the issue and sets people at each other's throats. We should be deciding on the merits of the article alone, and deciding how best practice and comparable articles suggest we treat it. A period of calm reflection would give those editors who want to keep it time to seek out sources without all this fuss. Then perhaps we could ask for input from uninvolved editors. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This won't do. Notice how one-sided you are? Some people want to *keep* it for political reasons. We should be deciding on the merits of the article alone - sounds good, but then give those editors who want to keep it time to seek out sources - so you're admitting that there are people who want to keep it regardless of its quality? This blog, the author, and his book together make one moderately-notable article. Seperately, they aren't notable. You're really arguing that all three should exist, independently, and that the only "politics" is coming from those who want to merge them? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be right that people want to keep it for political reasons too. The reason I'm focusing on the anti-side is that they're the ones I see being aggressive here. As for the argument, personally I would write one article, probably about the person. My only point is that the politics are overshadowing what should be a fairly simple decision, and maybe some time and space would allow other people to make that decision without the interference. A hopeless request, but I make it anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the request is indeed hopeless. What should have been a simple merge of this articles content into the person has been flamed up by those who can't bear to see this deleted, entirely for political reasons. If you're looking for a quiet debate, then fine: help us merge this stuff over there William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Putting aside the question of motive, maybe we can reconsider the merger question. See below. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger? (continued)

I was just thinking we may want to focus on merging this article into one of the others out there. How about it people? I favor merger myself. This article reads like a spinoff of a secondary article, which itself seems to have been spun off. Putting aside the sourcing question, I just think that the article is thin, as it is based on passing references in the media, and contains too much on this Campbell gent. I say merge to the article on the author of the blog, Mr. Montford I believe it is. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I support this. Earlier, I proposed adding the paragraph about the blog's involvement Campbell's resignation to Andrew_Montford#Bishop_Hill, and then turning this article into a redirect. Such a merger still presents a WP:COATRACK issue by focusing too much on Campbell, but it was I compromise that I could live with. I still can. And before that discussion was derailed, we almost had consensus that merged or unmerged, the Campbell paragraph should be removed. I also still support that. I guess my point is: Merging--with or without the Campbell bit--or keeping unmerged but removing the Campbell bit--either of these options are improvements over that status quo, and I support either of them. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  Remember WP:VOTE … Nsaa (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Should Bishop Hill (blog) (a blog about climate-change scepticism) be merged into Andrew Montford, the bio of the person who runs the blog, or should it be the other way round? Or neither? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge Bishop Hill (blog) into Andrew Montford:

1. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Guettarda (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
4. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
5. ChrisO (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
6. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
7. Polargeo (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
8. Jminthorne (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
9. I read some climate change blogs and while I've seen Montford's name, I haven't registered the name of his blog. While I'm in principle in favour of having articles about everything under the sun, my view is not widely enough held here, and the common view is that blogs must be of genuine importance to be included. So no. Grace Note (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge Andrew Montford into Bishop Hill (blog):

1. I think the opposite, merge Montford into this article. Cla68 (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

   Question: I get that you think merging the other way would be preferable and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, but could you live with merging BH in AM? Is that a compromise you could make? Or, in your opinion, does it move things way too far in the wrong direction to be an acceptable compromise? Yilloslime ^T_C 22:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

   My reasons are primarily out of BLP considerations. Wikipedia still does not have an effective system, such as flagged revisions, for protecting BLPs. BLPs in this subject area (AGW) have been especially targetted in the past by editors looking to add unnecessesarily negative information for political reasons. If Wikipedia did have adequate safeguards, I would be willing to accept that as a compromise proposal. Cla68 (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't merge:

1. Why merge? The Author has done two highly notable independent works. One is the book (with enough good sources, see The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion), and secondly is running blog in question (with enough good sources, see [44]). As far as I see in the main article about the person he have appeared in many different public situations that's not directly related to his book or the blog, see for example Andrew_Montford#Media_appearances. Nsaa (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
2. No need to merge - unless to gain from a merge that which was not attainable at AfD. Collect (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral:

1. From looking around for sources, I'm not getting the impression that Montford and the blog are notable enough for two articles, so I support a merge on the understanding that no material will be removed. Normally I'd prefer merging into the BLP, but I'm unsure of that here because there are so few sources offering biographical material about Montford. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources on the blog are often more about Montford than about the blog. Polargeo (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should accept that he's not really important enough for anyone to talk about. Grace Note (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

So far, everyone except Nsaa supports a merge, only Cla wants it the other way. Fine; we can do the merge, and reverse the direction sometime in the future if there is ever consensus for that. @SV: fine (at least for present; obviously you get no promises for the indefinite future) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like a bit more time to look around, William. I found Bishop Hill mentioned by The New York Times, including in several readers' letters, but not Montford. I'd like to check a few other overseas newspaper archives to see whether Bishop Hill is more widely known than him. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

While I think it makes more sense to merge this article in Andrew Montford, I could live with Cla's suggestion to merge it the other way. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a new discussion, it's a continuation of a wider discussion involving all three articles. We shouldn't be starting this all over from scratch. Guettarda (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a new discussion for SlimVirgin. Perhaps you might direct her toward the previous ones, with links, etc.? Maybe you might wish to revisit the points, just to ensure that they remain valid? Possibly, you may wish to review what an editor of extensive experience in article writing and application of policy might bring to the discussion? You could, at least, be courteous. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but shouldn't SlimVirgin be reading the previous discussions herself? They're all here on the talk page - nothing has been archived. I'm also slightly flabbergasted by your suggestion above that an editor seeking to make drastic changes to a contentious article shouldn't feel obliged to make any effort to discover the current state of consensus. As I've said before, I would have thought that was basic good practice and courtesy to one's fellow editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"Drastic changes to a contentious article"? Chris, this is an under-developed article about a blog. What I did was add some sources that had mentioned the blog. And now I've posted an RfC about whether we should merge it (and if so in which direction), and I'm looking around to see which reliable sources have referenced it. There's no need for any of this to be seen as contentious. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The point which you're missing is that the same sources had been discussed at length on this talk page and had been removed because they were felt to be tangential, trivial or had BLP problems. A cursory review of the talk page would have shown this. You acknowledged earlier that you were unaware that the content in question was contentious, which unfortunately demonstrates that you were unaware of the previous discussions on the subject. The article was not "under-developed"; it had previously been developed in a way which the majority of editors on the talk page disagreed with. When you came upon it, the article had been reduced to a stub with the contentious material taken out. A consensus of editors agreed with this. Prior to your intervention, a fresh consensus was emerging for the stub to be merged into the Andrew Montford article - this was happening at #Merge Proposal above. It looks like the article will duly be merged now in its current state, but when this happens we're going to have to (yet again) discuss the same content that was previously taken out, and that you restored, to discuss the appropriateness for its inclusion in its new location and context. As Guettarda says below: "This isn't a new discussion, it's a continuation of a wider discussion involving all three articles. We shouldn't be starting this all over from scratch." -- ChrisO (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would SV be aware of this? How was this apparent on the article page? I should note that the premise of Wikipedia is that it is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", with no requirement noted to read the history of the subject they choose to exercise that privilege. The established editors, familiar with the subject and the issues surrounding it, are perhaps more bound to provide the assistance to a new contributor to help them understand the situation. As I have pointed out previously, the template on the article at the point SV began editing requested help in addressing the issues in the article first, and contributing to the discussion second. There was nothing in that page that might have given SV reason to believe they were not to make a good faith effort to resolve the apparent issues, without - and I am using this word deliberately to drive home the point I am trying to make - "permission" from the existing contributors. Please try and grasp the concept that the majority of WP editing is how SV approached this instance, and that it is the CC related article editing culture that is at variance with WP norms - and my evidence for that is that there is no community wide article Probation. I do implore you to attempt to consider that SV approached this article as she would any other, and that the response then and now is disproportionate to that which is considered the norm throughout the project. Simply, help the new editor understand why things are so rather than just stating that they are. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? Let's see - perhaps because this section is titled "Merger? (continued)"? There's nothing "at variance with WP norms" to expect editors to read the talk page. There's certainly nothing at variance with Wikipedia norms to expect experienced editors to read a section they've decided to participate in. We aren't talking about a newbie. We aren't talking about an editor who showed up at this page knowing nothing about controversial article editing. As for "permission" - editing this article is a crap shoot. Maybe you'll get blocked. Maybe you won't. Who the hell can tell? Guettarda (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A two or three sentence stub of a blog, with a template saying "this page has issues - please contribute or discuss" does not indicate that it is a controversial topic. The templates now existing do give some indication, but not that existing when SV came to it. Even noting that there is a section on the talkpage entitled "Merger" is not evidence that adding to the existing article would be controversial. Ultimately, even knowing the subject or article is controversial is no reason to not try and improve it by good faith application of ones understanding of policy; there is WP:BRD after all. I would be surprised if I were blocked, but so much as I would be amused. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

By "you" I was talking about everyone but you, LHvU. Obviously, since you're the one who's making up rules - protecting the article for "edit warring" when none was going on, and blocking editors without warning.

As for the rest of it... Even noting that there is a section on the talkpage entitled "Merger" is not evidence that adding to the existing article would be controversial. Er...ok. Why are you injecting irrelevant stuff that's unrelated to the issue here? That's not the issue here. Are you injecting irrelevant stuff to side-track the discussion, or have you just not bothered to figure out what's going on before injecting yourself into the discussion? Do tell. Guettarda (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am noting it since there has been statements to the effect that SlimVirgin should have made herself aware of the potential for controversy in editing the article, which I am attempting to show would not have been apparent in reviewing the article page as was or even if looking over the talkpage - I am trying to evidence that AGF needs to be shown toward her. Once that issue is settled, then the participants can continue resolving whether and where this article may be merged to. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you're picking a tangential point and running with it. All you're doing is muddying the water and making it that much harder for other editors to resolve matters. Guettarda (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

AGF is a "tangential point"? I don't think so. Some progress is now being make in expanding this into a more complete article. I had hoped that the tendency on some AGW article talk pages to attack new editors who showed up and suggested changes and/or additions was a thing of the past. Cla68 (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The blog is only notable because of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. The portions of this article relating to Montford should be merged there, and the portions relating to the controversy can be included on that page if helpful. Jminthorne (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That is true. There is a proposal to merge this into the Montford article, whose notability is questioned, and which is proposed to merge into the article on his book, whose notability is questioned, and which is proposed to merge into another article, which is not being suggested for merger, so I guess we're safe there. The final article is called The Hockey Stick Illusion. But actually, when you really think about it, there is no reason to mention the blog in the Hockey Stick Illusion article. Perhaps another merger scenario needs to be contemplated. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Some stats

A quick search of archives to see who has mentioned Bishop Hill and Montford in the last 12 months:

• The New York Times: several mentions of Bishop Hill (mostly in readers' comments); one of Montford.
• The Daily Telegraph: several mentions of Bishop Hill; two of Montford
• The Guardian: three mentions of Bishop Hill; two of Montford
• BBC News: one mention of Bishop Hill; one of Montford
• The Times of London: one mention of each in the same article
• Channel 4 (UK): one mention of Bishop Hill; three of Montford
• The Daily Mail: one mention of Montford, none of Bishop Hill, though the reference to Montford is a reference to his blog

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• The NYT links include one mention of the blog by Revkin in his blog. The remainder are comments. Which may as well not exist. No registration required to post a comment in blogs hosted by NYT. So it's one mention of the blog, in a blog. Meaningful data point, or Revkin's personal preference?
• The Telegraph search showed the last 4 years, not 12 months, and included mention of "the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Rev Christopher Hill". All of the recent mentions come from Delingpole's blog, and since Delingpole refers to both the blog and the person as "Bishop Hill", he's not a very useful source. (Again, this fits with other failures to fact check.)
• The Guardian makes two mentions of the blog, in the context of the blogger ("the blog Bishop Hill, run by climate sceptic Andrew Montford", "Montford's blog, called Bishop Hill", which follows "a British website run by sceptic accountant Andrew Montford") and one mention of a committee hearing that was live-blogged by Bishop Hill (among others). All in all, the balance is towards identifying the blog with Montford, making him more notable.
• BBC - one mention of the people posting comments on the blog. (The mention of Montford is in a reader comment, which is meaningless.) Neither tells us anything about usage or notability.
• Times: "Andrew Montford...who writes the...Bishop Hill blog" - Montford is the subject here, BH is where he does what he does.
• Channel 4: #1, an article by Montford, identified as the author of his hockey stick book; #2 "posted on the Bishop Hill blog, run by climate sceptic Andrew Montford", #3 a link to #1.
• Daily Mail - "a British website run by climate change sceptic Andrew Montford"

Outside of the narrow world of the climate change blogosphere (where both Revkin, Delingpole and Montford can be positioned), there are two stories here: the Paul Dennis story and the Campbell story. In both cases Montford posted a scoop on his blog. Whatever his blog is called. The simple fact that it went from politics to climate overnight says something about how plastic it is. Bishop Hill isn't a real entity, it's the name of Montford's blog. It's not a group effort, even if it may have the occasional guest post. If Montford decided tomorrow that he wanted to switch "sides", Bishop Hill would do the same. It's not like Daily Kos where, where Markos has taken time off to write his books, and the front pagers and the community have kept going without him. The point is even more strongly made by the fact that Montford is able to post columns in other media. Now prior to the sale of Wonkette I would probably have said the same thing about that site (or would have, if I had been a reader). But the fact is that Montford made a name for himself as a blogger and then turned that into a book. That's why we have an article on Julie Powell, we have one on the movie that was made (in part) from her book, but we have no article on her blog. Despite the fact that it was the blog that brought her to the attention of the world, at least initially. Guettarda (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikistats: Bishop Hill (blog) viewed 1,192 times in April (721 hits in May so far); Andrew Montford 824 times (324 in May). SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That's all? I'd have expected more than that from editors after 3 established editors were blocked for "edit warring" (at one edit a piece). Guettarda (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's about the same as articles about similar blogs, e.g. DeSmogBlog 1,202 hits in April, RealClimate, 1,055. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the point? We don't use google hits to gauge notability, so we shouldn't use page views. Also, I'd imagine this all this recent controversy and the AfD and RfCs have significantly increased page views over what they'd normally be. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The point of looking in newspaper articles and at WP stats is to decide whether to merge the blog into the bio, or the other way round, YS. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

OK I see. It was the comparison to hits for DeSmogBlog and RealClimate that threw me off. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking at the links supplied above, and they appear to all fit the definition of "trivial mentions" described in WP:WEB: "a brief summary of the nature of the content." I don't know what to make of the viewer statistics, which I suggest may be influenced by Wikipedia editors eyeballing the content. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Done

Consensus looks pretty clear above: everyone except Nsaa supports merge. So I've done it William M. Connolley (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There's an open RfC about this, William, and you're involved so you can't close it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SV - you do not qualify as uninvolved on this article. Collect (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No one's commented on the RfC for quite a while now, and the consensus is quite clear--in fact it's only gotten stronger since the RfC was "officially" opened. What's the point of stalling? Yilloslime ^T_C 21:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I only opened the RfC two days ago, and haven't even commented on it yet myself or let people know about it elsewhere. And the point is that no one who's involved in it should be closing it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - you don't get to delay things just by starting an RFC. The consensus is obvious. If the RFC somehow throws up a whole slew of contrary views, then of course we can reconsider. The merged articles are now fairly small - it would be better to dump the book in too - but a lot better than two tiddlers William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The other climate change RfCs listed there don't seem to have drawn much comment either. Merger has been discussed since April 21, so I really don't see the harm in merging now. However, if there is a strong disagreement with merging, perhaps we can de-merge for a couple of days and see if anyone drops by with a convincing argument for non-merging. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

RfCs run for 30 days. What's the hurry? Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If 30 days is standard I certainly have no problem with that. However, this has been discussed for some time. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like we had pretty much reached consensus before the discussion was officially turned into an RfC. So turning it into an RfC and then insisting it run for 30 days come across like a stalling tactic, especially when (some of) those arguing for delay are in the "don't merge" camp. (Not saying anything about people's actually intentions, just how it comes across). Yilloslime ^T_C 22:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You're engaged in the language of BATTLE. "Stalling tactics," and "you don't get to delay." There is a minor disagreement so I posted an RfC. It doesn't need to stay up for the full 30 days, but it does need to stay for longer than two, and it can't be closed by someone who's involved unless we all agree. WMC was an active admin for a long time and he knows that. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what the panic is about here. It's just an article about a blog. It's unclear whether the blog is more notable or the author (I'm leaning toward the blog at the moment), but either way there's no rush to decide. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The earliest discussion of merger was 4/21, so there really hasn't been any haste. I don't know enough about RfCs to opine as to whether opening one "stops the clock," but if so it somehow doesn't seem quite right in this kind of situation. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If/when someone starts an AN/I thread on this, please let me know. I don't usually have that page watchlisted. Similarly, please let me know if/when the WP:GS/CC/RE thread is started. Thanks. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS

In this two edits [45] the {{rs}} template is added. WP:VERIFY states in a footnote the following "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted only on the websites of news organizations are subject to the same standards expected of that organization's print editions (see Plunkett, John. "Rod Liddle censured by the PCC", The Guardian, March 30, 2010). Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")" [46]. I.e. the source http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017912/climategate-how-they-all-squirmed/ written by a professional (journalist) James Delingpole and hosted at the domain telegraph.co.uk (a news organization ...). So this is a WP:RS source per WP:RS as outlined in WP:VERIFY. Nsaa (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Delingpole's blog column meets the definition of a RS. As long as it is attributed, Delingpole can be used as a source in this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. That newspapers may call columns "blogs" doesn't affect their status as reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Which of course is contrary to what WP:V says. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Red herring. Ok sure, remove the {{rs}} tag, BUT: just because the source is reliable, that doesn't mean we should be citing it. WP:RS defines the pool of sources that could be included, but the policy of WP:NPOV tells us which of those should be included, and how we use them. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Reliable sources need to have a reputation for fact-checking. Since Delingpole reprinted Solomon's error-filled column without bothering to fact-check it, his blog fails the "reputation for fact checking" criterion for a reliable source. Clearly his blog can't be considered a reliable source for anything other than his opinion. So you need to make a case for the notability of Delingpole's opinion. Guettarda (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The source is The Daily Telegraph, with in-text attribution used because it's an opinion piece. Its reliability stems from the Telegraph's decision to publish it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Leave aside Delingpole's reliability for a moment. The line in question says: "In November 2009, James Delingpole wrote in a Daily Telegraph blog that Bishop Hill had reported the funding of the Climate Outreach and Information Network charity—to the tune of £700,000 over two years—by the British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.[3]" The problem with is is that doesn't say anything about the blog itself - the subject of the line is a grant by DEFRA to a charity. This is a textbook example of a coatrack: something that "ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." There's no indication of why this claim is in any way significant or notable or that it had any impact whatsoever. Delingpole seems to be the only media source to have mentioned it. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. Well said. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the Telegraph is using the blog as a source, and acknowledging it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Telegraph is using which blog as a source? Delingpole is giving Montford a hat tip in his blog post. The Telegraph isn't using Delingpole as a source, they're hosting his blog, much like Seed Magazine hosts PZ Myers blog. Guettarda (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole's column is one just like any other in terms of being a reliable source: see WP:V, footnote 4, and above. He is citing Bishop Hill as a source: "But as Bishop Hill has discovered it’s rather more sinister than that." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes.... That would merit a sentence like "Bishop Hill is sometimes mentioned as a source of information by Delingpole<cite a few>". Which is the information pertinent to this particular article. the rest is simply coatracking an issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not unusual to use sources like that e.g. DeSmogBlog#Notable issues or media mentions. It would be obtuse to say the blog was mentioned by this and that journalist, but without telling readers what the mention was about. Imagine an article about a novel: "X is a 2010 novel by John Smith. We can tell you who reviewed it but we can't tell you much of what they said, because that would be about the content of the novel, not the novel itself."

It's true that we have to watch out for articles turning into platforms, but a brief mention of what was on the blog that others felt was notable is fine. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is simply a strawman as well as trying to move the goalposts... With a book-review the content of the review is directly related to and about the book. Thus a rather different thing. As for the DeSmogBlog: Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.... Do you really think that i believe that coatracking is good because it is in a "pro-" article? No - i don't. In fact i believe that DeSmogBlog contains many of the same problems as we see here....(and i have made that view clear before).

It is really very very simple: What the blog is quoted for is not pertinent, it is that it is quoted that is interesting. Otherwise it is simply a coatrack for discussing/presenting issues without due weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim, can you point me to a policy or guideline that supports your view that, when writing about blogs and similar, we're not supposed to include reference to their content, even when that content has been referenced by reliable secondary sources? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a case of not including reference to their content, as of whether that reference is significant and notable to understanding the ostensible topic of the article, i.e. the blog itself. See my comment below. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

First: While WP:COATRACK is not a policy, it is rather relevant here. Second: I did cite one policy that i find pertinent: WP:UNDUE - Third: There is no policy stating that we shouldn't discuss the sex-life of bees, in detail, in an article about book-binding. Finally: ChrisO surmises correctly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And why is it notable that "the Telegraph is using the blog as a source, and acknowledging it"? By the same logic, every time this blog is mentioned by the media we should be logging it here, right? Something like the Campbell incident does appear to have some notability because it had some wider repercussions than just a media mention. This on the other hand is a claim that has been mentioned in passing by one source and has not gone any further - no wider controversy or even any mentions by any other media sources. The problem with the logic being followed by including this reference is that it implies that every time the blog is mentioned, no matter how trivially, it should be recorded in this article. Undue weight, anyone? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

One additional point - it's wrong to say "the Telegraph is using the blog as a source." Delingpole's blog is hosted by the Telegraph. It is not part of the Telegraph. As I've said previously, Delingpole's blog is available only on the Telegraph's website, and is not archived by services such as Factiva or ProQuest. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no policy or guideline that I know of that differentiates between a news organization's online and print content. V specifically says that content may be on- or offline. The Press Complaints Commission in the UK recently ruled that there was no difference as far as they were concerned either, [47] and there certainly isn't in law. We need to follow the policies here. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get sidetracked here. I'm not saying there is such a policy or guideline. I'd appreciate it if you could address my point about the triviality of Delingpole's mention and whether you think that we're supposed to log every media mention of this blog, which I think would be an absurdity. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We're waaaaaaaaay off track here, devoting megawatts of bandwith to whether or not a tiny tag should be added to a footnote. But let me just throw in my two cents. As I read our policies, and I admit I probably haven't read all of them, blogs aren't reliable sources. I think the spirit as well as the letter of that policy needs to be enforced, and it's absurd to talk about something coming to "public attention" when it's really just one skeptic blogger quoting another skeptic blogger. I'd either take it out completely or make it just a passing reference, maybe in a sentence like, "The BH blog has been quoted by climate skeptic bloggers James Delingpole, Arthur Cupcake and Melanie Rugelach." That can go either in this article or whether this winds up, if there is a merger, as is the real issue. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think we should park this issue for now. Let's deal with the issues one at a time. First priority has to be the disposition of this article, i.e. the proposed merger. Let's get that out of the way, using the present content, then go through the merged content with a fine-tooth comb to see what we need to retain in its new home. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger template

Shouldn't a merger template be on this article per se, and not the talk page? I notice that other articles have that merger template right up front. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)