Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Raymond Arritt

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Raymond Arritt

[edit]
(
)
Raymond Arritt in 2017
Raymond Arritt in 2017
  • ... that Raymond Arritt's research for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change led to sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize? Source:Review of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program's Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.2, "Climate Projections Based on Emission Scenarios for Long-lived and Short-lived Radiatively Active Gases and Aerosols". National Academies Press. 2007-09-27. p. 40. doi:10.17226/12035.

Created by IntoThinAir (talk). Nominated by Flibirigit (talk) at 14:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC).

@EdChem and Gerda Arendt:, please feel free to make additional suggestions. I have added both of you with a nomination credit, and donated a QPQ. Flibirigit (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that when the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize went to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, researcher Raymond Arritt (pictured) said "It's kind of neat: I have, like, .002 percent of a Nobel prize now"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@IntoThinAir: Thanks for creating this and adding the QPQ. Much appreciated. My suggestions on a hook are:
It would be good if we could add a "(pictured)" too, if we can get a suitable picture from his son. EdChem (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
"Wikipedian" is not in the article, hard to sourced, and I'd not even wanted it to be mentioned in the hook, even IF in the article. An image would be great. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Gerda, we cannot use a hook with Wikipedian at this time as it is not sourced nor in the article. If that changes, we can reconsider. A photo would be nice if released by the owner, since it is still too early to claim fair use with a Template:Non-free biog-pic license. Flibirigit (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Photo had been added to the nomination, and User:Sarritt added it to the aticle. Flibirigit (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that we can't say "Wikipedian" without that being in the article. However, I think it would be nice to be able to say it as part of showing who Raymond was, and also to note (in passing) that Wikipedians include some amazing people.
  • I thank Flibirigit for starting the nomination and apologise for my unclear acknowledgement above – I meant to recognise IntoThinAir for starting the article and Flibirigit for the DYK nomination and I garbled it.  :(
  • Thank you to Sarritt, Raymond's son, for providing the photograph and to Flibirigit for adding it into the nomination.
  • I have concerns about the original hook and ALT1 as Raymond did not share the Nobel Prize. It was shared between the IPCC and Al Gore. The IPCC itself explicitly stated that:

The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”

Further, the personalised certificates that the IPCC leadership presented related to the Nobel Prize were not sent to contributing authors (which is what Raymond was, as I understand it). Regarding the original hook, I'm not sure his research was for the IPCC, either. Consequently, I believe that we should strike the original hook and ALT1, and choose from ALT2 or ALT3a/b (without the mention of Wikipedian if necessary).
  • ALT2 has the phrase "Nobel Prize" twice, which I have avoided in ALT3a/b by adding the wikilink into the quote itself, in two different possible ways – these are also more concise. So, as far as I can see, here's where we are... EdChem (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Prof. Arritt in 2017
Prof. Arritt in 2017
We may just be having the longest discussion on hooks, before the nomination has actually been reviewed by a neutral party. I will revisit this hopefully on the weekend or by Monday. I will be fairly busy until then. Flibirigit (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I have added a writing credit to Softlavender for her work. Flibirigit (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the duplication of Nobel Prize is a problem: we can't link from the quote, and can't change the quote. We normally don't say "Prof.", why should we here? We have space to have the full title of the panel instead of an abbreviation, mentioning Climate Change! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I see a lot of good suggestions have been made, and I'm indifferent as to which is used. Since a lot of comments have been made so far, it almost looks like a review has been done, when one hasn't. I am putting a red chaeck mark here to make it clear that a review is needed. Flibirigit (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I'm going for ALT1. Good to go! =D Sidenote, Rest in peace dear professor :) VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Returned from prep. ALT0 really isn't that hooky. Let's work more on the ALT1 angle for an image hook. Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Courtesy pings to @EdChem, Gerda Arendt, IntoThinAir, and Softlavender:. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd prefer ALT2 (naturally), or some other way to mention his field also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, the report did not win the prize; only a person or group can win the prize. Also, even the group did not win the prize -- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shared the prize with Al Gore, as noted in ALT4. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: What we have here is a case where the "hooky" hook is not particularly accurate (Raymond's math was off by two decimal points, and he didn't share the Nobel Peace Prize, so ALT1 is completely unacceptable and ALT2 is OK as a whimsy but not solidly accurate), and an actual accurate hook (ALT4) is wordy. In the end we need to decide which is most important -- hookiness or accuracy. Softlavender (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I think ALT4 would be the better option. Flibirigit (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree not to promote a cute math flaw, - ALT4, which was in prep. - What do you think about holding this for New Year's Day? Begin the new year with a smile and sharing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree. Softlavender's ALT4 hook is straightforward and good for an image slot. Hook ref verified and cited inline. Image is freely licensed. Rest of review per Vincent60030. ALT4 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The following section copied verbatim from WT:DYK. Please comment below this section.

Picture slot, Queue 5 – Raymond Arritt

This is the current lead hook for Queue 5 (nomination page, contributors to the discussion and promoter: Flibirigit, Gerda Arendt, me, Softlavender,Vincent60030, Yoninah, Narutolovehinata5). I have a few concerns:

  1. As it stands, this leaves open the possibility that Arritt's IPCC involvement did not necessarily occur before the Nobel Prize was awarded.
  2. Arritt and the other ISU academics were not contributors to the IPCC, they were contributing authors to one or more IPCC reports.
  3. The credits are a little strange: DYKmake for IntoThinAir and Softlavender, DYKnom for Flibirigit, Gerda Arendt, and me. IntoThinAir is the main author, Flibirigit nominated the article based on suggestions from Gerda and me, and did the QPQ. I am not sure, however, why Softlavender's article contributions ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] adding 3.5% of the text) – important minor edits and tweaks though these are – are DYKmake-worthy when my edits ([6] [7] [8] adding 17.5% of the text) are not? Do others think I have earned a DYKmake credit?
  4. I think the hook needs changing, perhaps to something like:

I am sure these are too wordy (the 'a's are probably ok), but at least they are accurate. I believe that the current hook is not and so some change is needed. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Although informational, I think all the hooks are way too wordy. And I don't think it should be having so many shortforms. I don't find these attractive. If you ask me, I would still let the approved one in the queue to proceed. Sometimes for a DYK things are ommitted so it's normal. About DYK credits, I think you should ask Flibirigit about this. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 06:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I don'zt believe that we need to mention Al Gore at all, - could be "a shared Nobel Peace Prize (with a link). I also don't believe we have to be overly precie in any DYK hook. Yesterday, the German Wikipedia ran this hook: "de:Fröhlich soll mein Herze springen!" We could return to his cute math, remember ALT2? Once there, do you remember I suggest to run it on New Year's Day? - Peace and Sharing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I get the ALT3b's as under 200 characters and with no initialisms (added second after comment from Gerda). In the original, Arritt is described as a contributor to the Panel that won the prize, whereas he was a contributing author to two of its reports. If we leave this as it is, it is likely to get commented on as an ERROR. I'm fine with omitting information but not fine with factual inaccuracies. I would have gone with one of the proposed hooks with the Arritt quote, but these were rejected on the nomination page. (posted after (edit conflict)) EdChem (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC) and edited 07:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber, Gatoclass, Vanamonde, Mifter, and Alex Shih: I recommend this hook be pulled from the Queue and returned to the nomination area for further discussion. Flibirigit (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: So are you gonna reconsider the credit claim for EdChem? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 06:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
May I also offer to substitute with Template:Did you know nominations/Regolith-hosted rare earth element deposits? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 07:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Once we discussed so much here, I wouldn't do it because this is the more visible spot. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

ALT3b1 and 3b2 are inaccurate, as they imply the IPCC won the Nobel for the 2001 and 2007 reports specifically, when in fact it won for its "decades" of research. Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I have pulled the hook while it's still under discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: could you please replace the empty hook with the one I suggested? Thanks VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Why do you want that hook in the lead slot Vincent60030? Gatoclass (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to replace it Gatoclass VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: the Loschbour man hook at the end comes with an intriguing image; not sure why that wasn't kept for a picture slot. You could pull one of the quirkys from the preps, and I'll put in another quirky there. Yoninah (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I had to pull that hook too Yoninah, due to problems identified at WP:ERRORS. I'll look around for some replacement hooks a little later. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: well. There are no special occasion hooks here, so you could swap the whole set with one of the prepared prep sets. Yoninah (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but then I will be up half the night vetting all the new hooks, it's much easier for me to just find a couple of extra hooks to plug into the existing set. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm much more concerned about accuracy of the hook than I am about credit. I take Gatoclass' point that my ALT3b1 and 3b2 can be read as the Nobel Prize being for those reports specifically, so I guess we need to think more about how to get an accurate and concise hook. EdChem (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    ALT4: ... that when the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize went to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, researcher Raymond Arritt (pictured) said "It's kind of neat: I have, like, .002 percent of a Nobel prize now"? (This was ALT2 in the nomination.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have returned the conversation from WT:DYK back to this nomination page for further discussion, and to keep everything in one place. I have also amended the DYK credits to make IntoThinAir the only writing credit, and everyone else as a nomination credit. I feel that both EdChem and Softlavender are best credited with a nomination, rather than writing. I apologize for the mistake I made earlier. Flibirigit (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I have restored EdChem's DYKmake credit - clearly he's made a sufficient contribution to the article. I have also deleted the DYKnom credits for Gerda and Softlavender - only one person is entitled to a DYKnom credit, and that is the person who identifies an article that is suitable for DYK and creates a nomination template for it - in this case, Flibirigit. Gatoclass (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Gatoclass, FYI, I was the one who suggested that the article be nominated – see this now-archived discussion from WT:DYK in which Gerda Arendt participated. I contacted Raymond's son to ask him to upload the photo. I appreciate Flibirigit responded to my comments. I was not seeking to deny Softlavender any credit, but rather was unsure why my article contributions were treated / evaluated differently, and I'm sorry that it is turning into a bigger discussion... but it needs resolution. I believe that I have done enough for some credit but whether it is DYKnom or DYKmake is ultimately much less important than the other issue I raised in the discussion now pasted above – making the hook accurate.
Credits Issue: I think that it is unarguable that Flibirigit gets DYKnom as the nominator and QPQ reviewer and IntoThinAir is the primary author of the article and so gets a DYKmake. Does anyone disagree? What are everyone's thoughts on the contributions from me, Softlavender, and Gerda?
  • EdChem's thoughts: prefer DYKmake but will accept consensus on DYKnom or DYKmake or neither. EdChem (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a little hasty in my comments last night, it's just that I've seen a fair bit of either abuse or misunderstanding of DYK credits, particularly DYKnom, in the past and it's something that bugs me. On reflection, I agree that you are Gerda are entitled to a DYKnom credit along with Flibirigit, and since both you and Softlavender made not insignificant contributions to the article, I think you are both entitled to claim a DYKmake credit if you want it. This is a nomination that clearly has emotional significance for some users, and regardless of whether or not somebody's contribution might technically meet the requirements, I think we are entitled to make some allowance for that. Gatoclass (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't count credits. This is about making a good person known. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
That's fine Gerda. Regardless, I have restored the DYKnom credits for you and EdChem. I will leave it to EdChem and Softlavender to decide for themselves whether or not they want to add DYKmake credits for themselves, as I know that different people have different standards in that regard. Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
None of us gave it to themselves, it was a generous act of attempted sharing, and reading the word "abuse" in the context comes with a somewhat bitter taste. Merry Christmastide. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Fine, and my intervention was intended as an act of generosity to EdChem, who it seemed to me was being arbitrarily deprived of a DYK nomination credit he had requested. My comment about "abuse" was clearly referring to other noms, not this one, nor did I accuse anybody here of abusing the credit system. Apart from which, I already admitted that my intervention last night had been hasty and ill-considered. But in returning here today to try and straighten things out, it seems I've only managed to put noses further out of joint. I do agree however that squabbling about DYK credits over this of all nominations is silly and inappropriate and I should have kept my mouth shut, but at least now I have seen the error of my ways, so a "merry Christmastide" to you too. Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry about all this :( EdChem (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I should have kept my mouth shut and smiled or laughed, "go on with life, have a laugh, don't get too upset". So: also sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving this down in the hope of a focus on this...
Hook Issue: As far as I can see, the only proposal that has not got a problem with accuracy or being way too wordy or using initialisms is the one Gerda mentions or variations, like:

I think it is desirable to recognise that the prize was shared, and also to describe Prof. Arritt as a "contributing author" (which he was, to the 3rd and 4th IPCC Reports) rather than simply as a "researcher" as it explains why he made the comment. I don't see how to include links to the reports to which he contributed without using the initialism "IPCC." I think identifying which Nobel Peace Prize it was (2007) is prefereable - ALT6b rather than AlT6a - but it is borderline on length. I recognise that the calculation behind the quote is inaccurate, but it is an accurate quote of what he said, so I don't see why it matters. Any thoughts on these possibilities, or other suggestions? EdChem (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC) (moved 14:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC))

I am satisfied with the proposals ALT6a and ALT6b. We could also put a footnote in the article to explain the incorrect math. Flibirigit (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Raymond_Arritt&oldid=1070593297"