Talk:Raymond S. Bradley
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.|
Leave off the speedy stuff, I've only just started it. Have some patience please William M. Connolley 21:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Putting up your blog buddy, WMC, isn't very respectable .... J. D. Redding 14:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC) (probably should get a VfD; but I know you will call in friend to protect it if it was ...)
Move this to the Hughes bio, "Hughes is one of the world's best known dendrologists". J. D. Redding
THis needs a rewrite ... "It is ironic, that the two senior authors have been disappeared by those who would dispute the results of that paper" J. D. Redding 14:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please leave the ref format alone: there is an arbcomm judgement on this. VFD? Would be a waste of time, so... William M. Connolley 16:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
WMC POV editing and reckless opinion removed:
- According to Bradley's point of view (derived from various statistical studies and energy balance models)
- (alluding to his belief that McIntyre and McKitrick's work did not properly go through the peer review system). Some have wondered why Bradley did not archive his data sets for future review. 
- ^ Variations of the Earth’s surface temperature
- ^ Letters Requesting Information Regarding Global Warming Studies; Letter to Dr. Raymond S. Bradley, requesting information regarding global warming studies.
- ^ Irene Sege, "Inhospitable climate; Political storm over global warming swirls around a UMass professor". Boston Globe.
- ^ "Interview With Ray Bradley; Interview with Ray Bradley". CNN.com.
- ^ "Bradley’s Data Archiving". climateaudit.org, July 2005.
- External articles
- Climate System Research Center (a site that he is averse to it seems from his editiing pattern)
J. D. Redding 11:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Reddi, this is silly. Wiki-ing "Perspective (cognitive)" for "point of view" is just so typically pointless and you. And asserting that it *is* Bradleys POV is silly too: its better to refer to what his actual work says. William M. Connolley 11:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing silly here ... it's better to be NPOV in your editing ... it is Bradley's perspective (derived from certian studies and models) ... which adhere to your own perspective (eg., POV) .... not to mention that he is your "blogging buddy". Also ... information like "Bradley’s Data Archiving" from climateaudit.org should be included ... a site that you seem to be averse to. J. D. Redding 12:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
In all of the climatologists' pages here on Wikipedia associated with the climate change debate and the IPCC I've yet to see one mentioning schools attended and degrees achieved. Furthermore, outside links listed on said articles also don't relieve my curiosity on what they actually studied. Some don't even list the types of degrees. Can anyone clarify? For example, after spending a few minutes using Google, I was able to come up with "Ph.D. 1974, M.A., 1971 University of Colorado, Boulder. B.Sc. 1969 University of Southampton, England" for Dr. Bradley but were these degrees in computer science or electrical engineering or what? I'm really curious for two reasons now; why they are not listed and why they seem to be unimportant enough to ignore. Thanks for your help. An acquaintance told me of this odd fact and it is one of those things you chuckle at until you find it is true. --Traumatic (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the RealClimate reference for the following reasons:
- WP:BLP Linked material discusses M&M who are living persons and the tone of the material found there does not matter (regardless of whether it is negative, neutral, or positive).
- WP:BLPSPS Self-published blogs of other authors NEVER suitable sources in a BLP including THIS one.
- WP:PROMO This is a self-promoting link since both the subject and Connolley are, or have been, affiliated with the linked blog.
- WP:COAT Topic being discussed there is tangential to the subject of this article, i.e. this article is about Raymond S. Bradley and NOT about the hockey stick controversy.
- Your reasoning is spurious. The link is not being used as a source but as a link. Please read the text. As for the M&M bit - the article already says "he finds the assertions of McIntyre and McKitrick to be without worth" which is a quote from the letter to Barton William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Bradley's comment on M&M is attributed as his opinion cited to a self-published source (which is still a bit iffy sourcing wise but at least it is on the man's own BLP in defense of himself). What Gavin Schmidt has to say about M&M in a self-published source that has nothing to do with this BLP is another matter entirely. RealClimate is not a reliable source for use per BLP self-published sources in any context other than one of that site's authors talking about themselves. Such is not the case with the link which you appear to want to self-promote. The IP's reasoning is sound and based firmly in policy.
- On a related note, the fact that this is a link is irrelevant. You cannot simply use links to self-published sources as a means of circumventing BLP. This should be obvious. If that were the case then William M. Connolley would be littered with such references (something I would oppose on the same grounds). --BLPWatchdog (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
MN has reverted this again, with no discussion. I've restored it, for all the previous reasons. It would be nice not to have to keep going through this - perhaps people could try reading the talk page next time William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted the fact tags, which weren't very useful. Discussion of Hughes can go on Hughes page. TW: are you still claiming to be an uninvolved admin? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)