Jump to content

Talk:Christopher Landsea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Encouragement to Mr. Christopher Landsea

[edit]

Please continue to critizise scientific arguments. Don´t let the politicians stop you. I have experienced myself the method of ousting out of communities or positions of influence, which represents the lack of intellect in these people, and their prejudice and other weaknesses. Knowledge is what counts. Please remember that bullies never force you to give up, but oust you to do it in order that you may avoid bad circumstances. Critisism is the essential method of truth, and conservatism is it´s worst obstacle. Teemu Ruskeepää 10:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


WP:BLP Violations

[edit]

WP:BLP:

"Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article"

Sourcewatch and the blog are clearly not acceptable. The blog doesn't even relate to Landsea, but Pielke's views on the IPCC, used to cast a negative light on Landsea, which is not acceptable per WP:BLP. Put the Pielke line in Pielke's article. --Theblog 05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are being silly. The Pielke quote is obviously appropriate, and usable, and adds useful info to the article William M. Connolley 13:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not, the line includes OR, plus its in a blog, plus he hedges his bet at the end. It doesn't belong. --Theblog 16:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this via Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stephan Schulz and thought I'd leave a comment. The blog thing is a red herring because, as has been pointed out, it's Pielke's blog being used to support a quote by Pielke. So the only question is whether a direct quote from Pielke is a reliable source in this context. Also the BLP rule applies to a "source about a living person" but the quote discusses the IPCC, not Landsea—so it's not clear that BLP applies. --Nethgirb 23:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its put in there as OR or SYN to cast badly on Landsea, you'll note the one point about being the original poster of Landsea's letter is not in the blog post, and I don't believe Landsea is mentioned at all, I'll have to go back and doublecheck. --Theblog 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Landsea doesn't appear anywhere in the blog article, putting him in the line is clear WP:OR. It is still a blog source which is being used to cast a poor light on Landsea. --Theblog 01:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about Pielke posting Landsea's letter is not OR -- already cited previously (did you not notice that?) and I added the citation below now, not that it was strictly necessary. --Nethgirb 12:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its clear that BLP doesn't apply, cos tB has been blocked for breaking 3RR over this and BLP has been explicitly rejected as a reason. tB: I suggest that you take this to BLP noticeboard or wherever before trying to use it again here William M. Connolley 13:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, William is correct, it is not a BLP issue. --Theblog 21:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR Problems with this line

[edit]

"After Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, Republican administrators preferred Landsea over other scientists in NOAA to speak to the media about the link between hurricanes and climate change."

The referenced Salon article [1] doesn't say that at all. It says:

"Chuck Fuqua, was happy to have a more politically reliable NOAA hurricane researcher named Chris Landsea speak to the press"

Instead of BLANK, who could or could not be a scientists in NOAA or elsewhere- the article speculates on a scientist, but it is not clear if it actually was. It is also not clear that he "preferred" Landsea over anyone, just that he was happy to have Landsea on.--Theblog 06:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New source adds solid name, but its just one scientist and its not clear he was preferred, just used over that guy. --Theblog 16:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop deleting this stuff just because you don't like it William M. Connolley 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not deleting it because I do not like it, I am deleting it because it is inaccurate. --Theblog 18:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem determined to ignore 3RR under guise of BLP William M. Connolley 21:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original statement and my above concern are WP:BLP violations, you have yet to show otherwise. --Theblog 00:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have your own odd interpretation of BLP which no-one else shares; in particular the admin who blocked you for 3RR didn't share it. Please leadrn from this William M. Connolley 21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for your kind wisdom. --Theblog 21:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So... if you accept they aren't BLP, what was your comment above about? William M. Connolley 21:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I didn't make it clear, I'm pretty sure I think the line under discussion here is currently accurate in the article. --Theblog 21:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reference #3

[edit]

reference # 3 Miami Herald no longer valid--please delete or correct.

Reference from the National Post

[edit]

In what way doesn't this National Post article comply with BLP rules? --Anarch (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's from a known crappy series of essentially opinion pieces by LS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which rule of the BLP rules covers this? Basically, your explanation translates to "I don't like it". --Anarch (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you have come to agree with me that this is not a BLP rule issue? --Anarch (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read those rules; that's why I referenced them. Maybe you'd like to elaborate with more than a single word why the National Post falls into the same category as "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs"? --Anarch (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming it does. I'm claiming that the Solomon series in not a reliable source and hence, per "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link", should not be included. The series has caused several statements from scientists that have been misrepresented (see e.g. [2]) and at least one formal retraction (see [3]). Note also that both the tone and the fact that the articles are attributed explicitly to Solomon indicate that these are editorials, not reports (and we know that they originated on Solomons blog). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Let's see:
  1. You don't disapprove of the 'National Post' as a source per se.
  2. You disapprove of the article not because of its statements, but because you claim that
    1. the author erred in other articles (which is, even if true, irrelevant to the question of citing this article),
    2. the article comes in the form of an editorial (which is, even if true, irrelevant since it's not covered by the BLP rules) and
    3. the article has previously been publishes on a blog (which is, even if true, irrelevant as well - or would a newspaper article also be invalidated if republished on a blog later?)
So - where's the BLP violation? --Anarch (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm. An editorial is only a RS for the opinion of the author, not for anything else. Solomon's opinion is irrelevant for the article. The fact that the article originated as a blog article shows that it was originally published without serious editorial control. And to quote from WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Solomon's series does not fit this description, hence it is not a reliable source, and hence it should not be used in a BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. First, the article contains undisputed and relevant facts, e.g. Mr Landsea's biography.
  2. In addition, it features a view of an important episode of Mr. Landsea's life; you didn't state any factual inaccuracies about it.
  3. Where do you take it from that editorials should not be used as sources? We can use a short disclaimer to point out the nature of the article (will be doing this in a second).
  4. Why should it matter whether a newspaper article was previously released on a blog? If it went through the print publication's vetting process later on and stood the test, how is the article's past publication relevant?
  5. You seem to get the BLP rules wrong: They are primarily designed to protect the individual who is being described in the WP article from libellous or slanderous claims and smears; the newspaper article in question does nothing like that; as mentiones, you fail to point out factual accuracies.
I'll put the reference back in. -Anarch (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Solomons article is so full of errors that I don't have the time to list them all. First is possibly the claim that the UN decided to study hurricanes. Anyways, since that article seems to be based solely on Landsea resignation letter (including being written in a faux direct address), I've replaced it with the primary source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Landsea&oldid=1216795959"