Talk:Piers Corbyn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom  
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Wired?[edit]

The current version of the Wired article seems to differ substantially from Googles cache of it William M. Connolley 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it does. I just looked it up before reverting you, the information you removed is in there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is PC?[edit]

There is a genuine disagreement about whether PC is an astrophysicist or meteorologist (Personal attack removed--UBeR). I would prefer to describe his as neither, but simply say what he is known for William M. Connolley 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it it help accuracy if one stated his actual degree? I can confirm he attended Imperial College as I met him there many times. I know he was in the Physics Dept but I am not able to confirm if he completed his degree, I just assume so. - Andy O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obrienaj (talkcontribs) 08:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


He provides meteorological consulting. That makes him a meteorological consultant. Saying he's an astrophysicist is misleading - he doesn't have an astrophsics consultancy; and saying he's a British citizen is so general as to be meaningless.

Personally I don't like the guy but just because he's not got any Met Office training is no reason to deny that he makes his living as a meteorologist, and a very well known one at that.

Usually the term meteorologist is applied to someone with a degree or certification in the specialty. IF Piers does not have these qualifications, perhaps the term "weather forecaster" would be more accurate ? Andy O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obrienaj (talkcontribs) 08:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to argue this point but the recent edits by single purpose accounts are clearly intended to be disruptive. I didn't know there was a weather mafia but well, you learn something new every day.

andy 22:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

How about we change the first sentence to: "...is a controversial British meteorological consultant, best known for his claims..."? I.e. not a meteorologist as such but certainly someone who makes money out of selling a meteorology service. It's a duck of sorts, although a funny-looking one. andy 09:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess I could go for your compromise. I'm rather unsure that we have good sources to demonstrate his work though - most (all?) of it is essentially sourced to PC himself. William M. Connolley 09:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Piers Corbyn did a degree at Imperial College in Physics, he then went on to become a weather forecaster using astrophysics as his main tool for predicting the weather, rather than conventional meteorlogical methods. I would say this makes him a weather forecaster, an astrophysicist, a meteorlogical consultant but perhaps not a "Meteorologist". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.156.80 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Having a degree in physics doesn't make him a physicist, let alone an astrophysicist, any more than having history degrees makes Chris Evans MP, Jessica Morden MP and Mark Tami MP 'historians' (which they're not). I've edited the initial description to say 'weather forecaster and businessman'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisHutchinson (talkcontribs) 09:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Prot / unprot[edit]

I unprotected the page. We're talking happily. If the anon won't talk, then it can be semi'd William M. Connolley 09:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Superstorm prediction[edit]

Isn't it a bit early to say his prediction was proven false? Not that I think it will happen, but five days is the generally accepted forecast horizon for conventional meteorology. Then how can satellite images taken the 20th of November prove anything? 82.95.201.33 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There was quite a bit more in there that was wrong: We are predicting three waves of storms to hit the British Isles and Scandinavia. The total effect is likely to be bigger than the storm of 1987 and aspects of them will have similarities to the tempest of 1703... The first is set to lash the nation from October 26 to November 1 and will affect most of Britain, he said... Winds will reach 80-100mph and there could be some tornado activity. But this is just the “warm-up”. From November 8 to 13 another system will batter the nation with winds of between 90mph to 110mph. While the worst affected areas will be Scotland and Northern Ireland it will still pack a hefty punch elsewhere. But the final, most intense period will be during November 24 to 28, he said. Wind speeds will reach hurricane force, with gusts potentially topping 130mph. William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The prediction of the superstorm has not been removed from his website, it's on the front page in large red letters as of now, predicting the storm to arrive by 1st/2nd December 2007. I have removed that sentence for the time being Tripper (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Here it is, in case it changes later:
Important Severe Weather Warning

HIGHEST RISK PERIOD FOR DANGEROUS WEATHER EVENTS EXTENDED TO 1st / 2nd DEC 2007

We continue to forecast the British Isles and the North Sea area are likely to be hit by a major storm(s) and associated substorms including possible tornado type events starting to show from Weds/Thursday 28th/29th Nov. These storm systems will then move into Scandinavia and have important impacts - in order of danger - on: Scotland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Wales, England, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, NW Germany, North Netherlands, North Poland and the Baltic States.
This is a superstorm period likely to include winds gusting to over 100mph from Hurricane Force winds. This is the 304th anniversary of the devastating Tempest of 26th/27th Nov 1703 (modern calendar) in which thousands of people died in southern England and when Portsmouth was destroyed. Although there are some similarities concerning solar forcing factors of storms developments, events of the 1703 magnitude are NOT forecasted for this period.
William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Piers[edit]

This bio has been edited by Piers in a distinctly non-NPOV fashion; it will require a lot of hacking back (puffing of early papers; over-hype of success of 2007 predictions) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It was too bad; I've reverted it. Just to take the intro; Piers is best known for *claiming* accuracy, not achieving it. Piers has a strong commercial interest in making his bio look good. Google [1] doesn't find much in the way of papers.

Also, what to do about edits like this [2]? The dew ponds stuff is intrinsically non-verifiable, but interesting. It obviously fails RS. But its harmless William M. Connolley (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Piers continues to edit and doesn't discuss, quite likely because he is unfamilair with wiki. I shall report this to COI and warn him William M. Connolley (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Now SEW is reverting without discussion. Which presumably means he thinks "a British meteorological consultant best known for his ability to predict the weather up to one year in advance" is defensible. I don't William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yet another problem with the PC/SEW version: In 1979, following some years of activism, he studied astrophysics at Queen Mary College, London, and wrote scientific papers on the mean matter density of the universe and the Cosmic string loop theory of galaxy formation - what were these papers? I can't find them. Where were they published?
What are we to make of the skill of his forecasts was proven by significant returns (about 40% profit) on a total of around 4000 weather bets placed on a monthly basis with William Hill at odds devised by the Met Office between 1988 to 2000 at which time William Hill banned his (too profitable) betting account. Nevertheless he still bets on the weather at times in various ways through various bodies in association with others. Is any of that verifiable? It has no source. Could in various ways through various bodies in association with others possibly be any vaguer? It is unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Journal paper[edit]

We link to a journal paper in the The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, but the URL does not seem to work. Does anyone know the title of the paper? ~ UBeR (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Using Scopus, I find only one 'paper' with his name on it. It is little more than a letter to Weather, and the latter is little more than a 'fanzine'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.88.43 (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:COI[edit]

Instead of speculating about me and making up things some would do well to ask me or go to source. Degrees are easy to check for example. I have a first class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc In Astrophyics from Queen Mary College for example. For WeatherAction actual forecasts (rather than taking exerpts from newspaper reports) you can ask via www.weatheraction.com or www.lowefo.com (where storm etc reports with sources - we (WeatherAction) always use reliable sorces for weather reports are also available). Libellous material against me being edited into a biog of me is totally unacceptable and I will take the matter further. Meanwhile I will attempt again to edit the the defamatory item into an honest version. This however is becoming a farce. Piers Corbyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiersCorbyn (talkcontribs) 22:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please specify here any portions of the article that you feel libellous and those points will be addressed. Further massive reverts or edits violating WP:COI will result in a much longer block. Vsmith (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for talking, Piers. I wonder if you might address some of the problems I've raised with your version. For example, wrote scientific papers on the mean matter density of the universe and the Cosmic string loop theory of galaxy formation - could you provide exact references to those papers please? William M. Connolley (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Article review[edit]

I'm reviewing this article for a number of compliance issues. This note is mostly for Piers, to understand what's up and why.

Removal of text

I have removed text such as the following. It is unencyclopedic and unsuitable:

  1. Talking to readers -- "This unacceptable activity includes inserting false statements in his biography in Wikipedia so if you are reading this please keep a copy for future reference before it gets falsified" (we don't talk to readers in articles)
  2. Apologetics -- "Weather Action ... does not receive state subsidy" (the article does not say it has, no need to say it hasn't)
  3. Promotion/styling -- "the power of his predictions ... the skill of his forecasts ... demonstrated forecasting skill ... success has netted him and his company a wide range of weather sensitive customers ..." and so on (inappropriate style; whether the underlying statements are factual or not, we don't promote)
  4. Self published text -- "proven skill verified ... " and so on (eg, cites from websites you have involvement with, such as weatheraction.com or lowefo.com)
Citable evidence needed

In addition a large number of statements need to be removed as hearsay unless an independent and reliable source can be shown for them. This is not because they are true or untrue, it is because there is a site policy that we do not say anything that canot be backed up by a good external source that is not connected with the subject, nor a "blog" or "forum" or the like, nor a newspaper or editorial that's just repeating your words unchecked. None of these are good evidence of the kind we use. A proper news, academic, scientific or other source is usually required, that can be checked.

In this area I need you to find a source for the following statements. I accept that there may be no sources for some of them, that's unfortunately not uncommon:

  1. A source that confirms your betting history or ban with Hill Samuel. Every source I have, is essentially repeating your description. I'd like something that is not just your word on it - not because of trust, but because as a matter of policy we cannot take a persons word for it as evidence, in any article we have. Found, though evidence of ban still needed.
  2. Dates, titles, publications and page references of each paper stated to have been published.
  3. The dates when your business was listed on AIM, the company name (and number at Companies House), and whether you were the owner, or what position you held (we don't have any of this right now). Found
  4. Evidence of the 2007 claims - where these can be confirmed to have been published, or amended.
  5. I have concerns about placing total reliance on the 'Wired' article of 1999 as a sole source for certain information. One long bio article in a website/magazine, has limitations.

Thanks!

FT2 (Talk | email) 04:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Wired - agreed. Its also rather clear that all the info in the wired article has come straight from PC rather than journalistic research, so really its just PC speaking, again William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes from PC.

1. re immediate above. Oh yes 'rather clear' so you have spoken to Wired??? They did plenty of independent research. Curious you want to talk most about teh longest ago studies too.

2. Doing me or anyone down does not make those who do such better people.

3. I removed "Because Corbyn does not publish his prediction techniques in scientific journals, his methods are not taken seriously by official weather prediction bodies." because this is a false statement. I suggest you name any official weather prediction body which states they do not take our forecasts seriously. I think there are no such bodies. I have correspondence and have had meetings which indicate what we do is taken very seriously at very high levels of Govt and 'official' bodies (phone me if you want +447958713320). Their problem is what to do about it.

4. I removed "Scientific studies and reports conclude that [[solar activity]] is not responsible for [[global warming]].<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html</ref>" because (a) it is irrelevent to my case that there is no statistical evidence in 22,000 years of data that CO2 controls world temperatures or climate. (b) it is nothing to do with my biog (c) It is entirely refutable and I have done so.

This is just another case of the sort of innuendo some are intent to heap into my 'biog'. Although I recognise and thank vey honest and serious objective people too, what is going on in wiki is farce. Why should 'biogs' (and I never started mine) be riddled with misrepresentation and malevolent innuendo?

Piers Corbyn

I also take issue with the ""Scientific studies and reports conclude that [[solar activity]] is not responsible for [[global warming]].<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html</ref> " bit. If you actually read the source article all it says is that sunspots are unlikely a causative factor in global warming. It does not say that all solar activity is ruled out, as a matter of fact there is a section in the article titled "Sun Not Off the Hook for Warming" that goes on to explain that not all solar activity can be ruled out as much of it is not fully understood yet. It's interesting because the actual article is titled "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" but then it immediately contradicts itself. I guess I could see how the editor who added that source could have made that mistake by reading the title, but in general I find it's good idea to read the entire article if I'm going to use it as a source instead of just going off the article headline. I any event, I'm removing this line as it's not pertinent to a biographical article on Piers Corbyn and the statement isn't truly supported by the source it cites. Elhector (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

www.lowefo.com[edit]

I removed "( The full forecasts are available via www.lowefo.com )". If the forecast is there, its not obvious. This just looks like commercial spam. To point out the obvious, there would also need to be evidence that the forecasts had been there *before* the event William M. Connolley (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"For info in English, see the page Netherlands." is not obvious enough? -- SEWilco (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Its a touch vague, don't you think? Perhaps you could find a URL for the november "forecast", and some evidence that it was made a year ago? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


First class honours[edit]

I was at IC (briefly) a while after Piers and remember an article about him in one of the college newsletters, so I can confirm he's telling the truth about having a First from there (and they take some getting). If memory serves though, they got his name wrong - he was referred to as Piers Carbyn :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltingpot (talkcontribs) 12:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Meltingpot (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Alas it is no use - your recollections aren't a WP:RS. But the college newspaper would be, if you still had a copy William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry - it was over 30 years ago.

Meltingpot (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing sources[edit]

I just clicked reference #14, "^ a b Matthew Rowan. "Haven't the foggiest? Read on". Independent, The (London).", and findarticles.com gave me a 404 page. The cited article needs to be found again, or replaced by another source. David Nemati (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation of predictions[edit]

Removed the comments below as the critics are not sourced and Main Stream Media opinion like "The Independant" is irrelevant. Any opinion can be concocted using MSM articles.

"In accordance with this view, critics point to inaccurate predictions, such as a white Easter in 1989,[13] and "raging weather" in September 1997.[14]

Outside the scientific arena, according to Corbyn in 1998, independent research conducted by insurers showed that for a particular day, up to nine months in advance, Weather Action's forecasts have achieved an accuracy rate of 55 per cent, rising to 80 per cent for 24 hours either side.[14] "

~~ Sun Spot


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.234.253 (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that contradicts what's in the "mainstream media" then feel free to add it. But don't remove sourced material just because you don't like where it comes from. ... discospinster talk 17:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't use the MSM to do original research. Site peer reviewed material please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.234.253 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no original research being done here. The article says that critics say such-and-such and this is cited by a reliable source. The research is done by the newspaper, not by the Wikipedia editor. If the newspaper's research is faulty then you can cite other reliable sources to show that. ... discospinster talk 17:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference in the lead[edit]

I removed a reference in the lead because it's a very brief news article that uses Piers Corbyn himself a reference, essentially - there was no actual science/proof that explains that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.160.107.179 (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing another pointless "source"; the line suggests that Corbyn was banned from betting, whereas the Guardian article described him receiving ownership of his company again. Nothing to do with betting at all163.160.107.179 (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to change this sentence in Global Warming section[edit]

Currently the sentence reads: Corbyn is well-known for his opposition to the idea of anthropogenic global warming. He writes about it on his website[28] and appears on talk shows to discuss his views of the weaknesses of the argument for manmade global warming.[29] Corbyn continues in this belief despite widespread scientific consensus that global warming is occurring due to human activity.

This seems a little awkward and written this way it reads more like an editorial rather than an neutral encyclopedia. Without changing the facts in these two sentences, I would like to suggest writing it this way: Corbyn is well-known for his opposition to the idea of anthropogenic global warming contrary to scientific consensus that global warming is due to human activity. He writes about it on his website[28] and appears on talk shows to discuss his views of the weaknesses of the argument for manmade global warming.[29]

any objections? Too soon for love (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

AusLondonder adding Page Restriction[edit]

User:AusLondonder: You added a Discretionary sanctions|cc on this talk page. It's my understanding that this is a page restriction, and page restrictions (according to the Discretionary sanctions page) are to be set by "any uninvolved administrator". Do you think I am understanding incorrectly, or do you think you are an uninvolved administrator? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on here, some clarification needed? Eversync (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Probably. It was about this edit. Pending clarification, I'm removing AusLondonder's discretionary sanctions notice from the talk page. But if most people think the talk page is subject to them, fine. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Suppose I meant clarification from someone on the procedural issue of 'uninvolved', as you asked. Eversync (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Or given the non-response, could you clarify are you suggesting User:AusLondonder could be considered involved in what way? Eversync (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Apologies not involved but not an admin. Have seen disputed editing re climate change. AusLondonder (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying; understand why you tagged given the way that material was dealt with. Eversync (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
AusLondonder: I apologize too, since it's obvious that I worded my question so poorly that I caused an apparent misunderstanding by EverSince, and I might be misunderstanding the requirements myself. Re the recent edits by EverSince, though, I don't see the disputing was re climate change but was re sources. That is: (a) the word "denial" depends on a headline in the Express; (b) the words "Conservative circles" depend on a quote from Bob Ward without saying so; (c) the word "repeatedly" suggests there is more than one article by Johnson in The Telegraph, but I see only one; (d) Johnson's Telegraph article actually says he "... wonders whether it might be time for government to start taking seriously the possibility — however remote — that Corbyn is right." ... which I guess is the base for the Wikipedia statement that Johnson has suggested "that Corbyn might be right", but that's more than Johnson said; (e) a press release and a newsblog by a non-professional are the sort of sources one could challenge. Accordingly I initially reverted the changes, but subsequently decided: nah, better to wait and see whether anybody else objects. If someone does: make it a new section please. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Those seem like perfectly fair points to me, but the kind of detail suited in usual way to collaborative editing of people's efforts rather than blanket reverts. As well as BJ's London assembly comments (per assembly member sourced piece on gov.uk site with apparent editorial oversight), and comments in that 2013 DT article including "I look at the snowy waste outside, and I have an open mind"), it's trivial to find other articles e.g. Daily Telegraph 2010 "The question is whether anthropogenic global warming is the exclusive or dominant fact that determines our climate, or whether Corbyn is also right to insist on the role of the Sun. Is it possible that everything we do is dwarfed by the moods of the star that gives life to the world?" Eversync (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Forecasts 2014/2015[edit]

I don't quite know what EverSince means by “had to delete the use of primary Met Office records for OR comparisons”. Athough I am a novice at Wikipedia, I do know that Original Research does not include a reference to Met Office data. I wonder if I am missing something here but I cannot think of a better type of reference than plain statistics from a world-respected organisation.

As for relevance, the article contained specific weather predictions by Piers Corbyn, leaving the reader to wonder “well....? What actually happenned?” In that respect the relevant passages were incomplete. They reported predictions without facts. I added facts and they were taken away. EverSince: I am restoring my edits. Please don't remove facts again.

As for mentioning that August 2014 was “the only month in that year that was cooler than average”. That was because the prediction was not just wrong, it was spectacularly wrong and If PC doesn't like the reporting of that fact, he can try to make better predictions.PussBroad (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies my edit comment not very clear; not disputing relevance or reliability of the Met source. I believe the relevant bits of Wikipedia:No original research:
No "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." ............. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." ............ "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source."
Not always clear cut, but I believe if you take a weather prediction source, and then a weather results source - neither of which mention each other - and try to combine them on Wikipedia to imply how accurate the prediction was, without any secondary source (independent experts or those involved) comparing and analysing them (like the source I just added for the 2012 prediction), then that seems to be original research.
On the broader point I'm not sure how to make the section fair overall, given no peer-reviewed meta-analysis of all predictions over the years. No doubt there could be lists of failures as well as successes for any prediction service to some degree?, but how to balance/interpret/compare to some baseline using secondary sources? That's separate of course to an analysis of the validity of the claimed scientific method of prediction. Eversync (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
On the first point, I haven't analysed or synthesised the published material, so that's fine, and in this case the conclusion is obviously simply that the temperatures were what the Met Office showed them to be. I didn't for example try to demonstrate that they showed continuous cooling of the British Isles.
On point number two, comparing is obviously not combining. The spirit of the rule is that facts should not be misrepresented. And if experimental results show that the phlogiston theory of burning is not correct, do I have to leave out the experimental results so as not to combine multiple sources?
On point number three, again like point one I haven't made any interpretive or synthetic claims, so it is not applicable.
So my comments and reference are not OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PussBroad (talkcontribs) 12:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah the issue is not necessarily misrepresenting, it's about constructing your own research by finding raw records and linking them to hypotheses (predictions in this case), implying your conclusion (you wrote 'actually...'). That actually needs to be based on secondary sources addressing the comparison themselves with editorial oversight (like the 'Foundations of Chemistry' source for Phlogiston theory, or the 2012 source I just added here - which gives different points of view on the results suggesting that it's not necessarily as obvious as you might think). Eversync (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Constructing my own research? No I obviously didn't. And the word "actually" is obviously a statement of fact, not the drawing of a conclusion. If I had said that the Met Office data clearly show that Piers Corbyn is bad at predicting the weather, that would be my own conclusion. I did not. Neither did I analyse, synthesize, combine, or make claims. I merely stated facts. You seem to be trying to use the flimsiest of technicalities to get my contributions rejected. I think arbitration is needed.PussBroad (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I am not trying to reject anything hence why I put 'had to' - you simply can't find your own raw data and link it in to another point in the article to show something. If so anyone could go find any prediction over the last several years and any related outcome data and stick it in the article. Suggest getting Wikipedia:Third opinion - would be good to agree for the section as a whole where to draw the line because it is subjective to a degree, I'll list it there soon unless you do. p.s. you shouldn't really edit your own comments after such time and after replied to. Eversync (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

A third opinion has been requested. I see that there is disagreement. What is the question? What is the material about whose inclusion there is a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - the specific issue is the addition of primary source weather data to the Forecasts 2014/2015 subsection, linked to the two forecasts there (from secondary sources which may not themselves have reported the outcomes). Eversync (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Is a fourth opinion OK? It's pretty clear that this is WP:OR unless you can find a source that does the same. More broadly, the sequence of "Forecasts [year]" sections would best be trimmed down and folded into the "Evaluation of predictions" subsection. We don't need a blow-by-blow account of each year's predictions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request (Is inclusion of primary sourced weather data to the Forecasts 2014/2015 subsection WP:OR or WP:SYNTH):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Piers Corbyn and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I note that:

  • an alternate opinion has been provided by Short Brigade Harvester Boris; this has not influenced the opinion presented here, but may be considered to obviate the third opinion process.
  • as this article is a biography of a living person, WP:BLP also applies; reference to this policy was not required in the formation of this opinion, but may be useful if the dispute continues.

On the basis that:

  • core content policy, WP:OR, states: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.;
  • core content policy, WP:OR@WP:SYNTH further states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.;
  • the primary sourced weather data is not directly related to the subject of the article, and no source has been provided verifying an analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis of that data which relates to the subject of the article;

it is clear that the inclusion is a synthesis which implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. I, therefore, support removal.
If a wider consensus is required, suggest referring the question to WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 17:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for responding (Ryk72 formally in place of Robert McClenon according to latter's talk page). I will remove the two sentences shortly on this basis. More broadly I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris there shouldn't really be yearly subsections for a 'blow-by-blow account'. Just a summary giving due weight to coverage in the media I suppose. If no follow-up was published on a certain prediction that would still leave the problem PussBroad raised of leaving readers wondering (or having to look up records themselves), don't know if that can be avoided unfortunately... Eversync (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard[edit]

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Piers Corbyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)