Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:04, 29 December 2009

Biography: Science and Academia Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Australia Stub‑class [REDACTED]

Ian Plimer is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. More information: /  This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. [REDACTED] The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Plimer's frauds

I think it is important to note Plimer's fraudulent reporting of others work. These frauds have continued despite having been repeatedly being brought to his attention. He cannot, therefore, claim that they are 'accidents'. Clearly he has 'guilty mind'. He has repeatedly reported various academics work on climate change, changing what they have said to mean the exact opposite. He has as a result been called a fraud numerous times, by many people, and including in the national and international media. He has not taken action against these people calling him a fraud because he clearly is, and truth is a complete defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.32.163 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Find a reliable source calling him a fraud before inserting it. ► RATEL ◄ 04:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You find a source; they are abundant. Monbiot has demonstrated his fraudulent activities for one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.32.163 (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Plimerite & Aust'n Humanist of 1995

I think it is worth noting Plimer's work as a skeptic fighting the creationists earlier, and also noting that :

- He has the mineral Plimerite - ZnFe4(PO4)3(OH)3 orthorhombic - named after him.
- Plimer was named ‘Australian Humanist of the Year’ in 1995.
- was president of the Australian Geoscience Council
- Plimer is the Patron of Lifeline (Broken Hill) & Patron of the Broken Hill Geocentre.
- Plimer is a regular communicator / populariser of science esp. geology and skepticism to the public via radio, print & TV.

Source : Page 4 ("About the Author") "Heaven & Earth", Connor Court, 2009. StevoR 124.182.226.16 (talk)

Australian Skeptics

The article mentions Ian Plimer is a member of "Australia Skeptics". The Australian Skeptics don't have members as such. They run events and provide outlets for people to investigate paranormal and pseudo-science. You can subscribe to their magazine but you don't actually join anything.

In fact the Australian Skeptics appear to disown Ian Plimer as their Web site shows him as a nominee for their 2009 Bent Spoon award for pseudo-science.Aussiejohn (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the comment questioning Plimer's membership of Australian Skeptics should be rewritten or removed. It is not correct to say that this group does not have members as such. I checked the Australian Skeptics website and while the requirement for joining is low (subscription to their magazine as correctly noted above)this is listed under the title "How to Join" so this is an advertised mechanism for membership. --Catherine111 (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I also followed up on the assertion that the Australian Skeptics appear to disown Pilmer and I think this is not supported via the link provided. Reading through the list of nominations for the 2009 Bent Spoon I found three discrete nominations for Plimer, one of which was from a nominator who also nominated the Australian Skeptics "for their tacit defence of Ian Plimer’s rather irrational anti-global warming book." Nominations are just via an email from anyone in the community, as such Tim Flannery and Nicole Kidman also received 2009 Bent Spoon nominations. So I think that the statement that he received a nomination is misleading without this context. It should either be removed or put in the context that the nomination does not necessarily support the majority of the group's members. --Catherine111 (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to second Catherine's comments. Many of the 'skeptic' organisations are peopled by anthropogenic climate change deniers, surprisingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.32.163 (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the skeptics are skeptical of all religious "beliefs", including those of climate change alarmists... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.18.1 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this information in the section on "Political affiliations"? I can see a reason for the Global Warming Policy Foundation as they appear to "challenge policy measures envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming", but the Australin Skeptics are a non-profit organisation which "investigates paranormal and pseudoscientific claims using scientific methodologies". Is it really there to allow his nomination for a "you're a tin-foil hat wearer" award to be included. If his membership of such a society is worth mentioning, it should be elsewhere. The info about being nominated for an award and not getting is crucial to the article how exactly? It should go.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is worthless tin hat nomination by an opponent which was not awarded to him. Off2riorob (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ratel has replaced the award story, it appears he has not seen the discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the discussion, and I disagree with it. Being named for this award by one of Australia's most well known and published scientists is a very notable occurrence in Plimer's life. It should not be suppressed. ► RATEL ◄ 01:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What rubbish, a bad faith nomination by a partisan opposer of him and he did not get the award the content is of no value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is not a forum for your opinions. Where is your source that this is a "bad faith" nomination? There is ample proof that Plimer's book fudges the science, so the nomination is logical. ► RATEL ◄ 01:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Plimer is under something of a cloud among the Australian Skeptics, but his association with rational skepticism is longstanding and well known. Is the question merely whether he was a member of a particular group? --TS 04:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

From this press release announcing Plimer's book:

About Professor Ian Plimer:

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist and academic. He is a prominent critic of creationism and of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. He has authored approximately 60 academic papers over 36 years, and six books.

Plimer is currently Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide. He was previously a Professor in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne. He is also a prominent member of the Australian Skeptics. He was awarded the Clarke Medal by the Royal Society of New South Wales in 2004.

Source:

Professor Ian Plimer

I'll keep searching and see if I can find something directly attributable to Plimer. --TS 04:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, actually that above piece is obviously a direct quotation from an earlier version of this article. Oh well. --TS 05:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah this is better. It's the blog of Plimer's publisher, Connor Court, and reprints an article by Penelope Debelle in the The Advertiser (Adelaide), an Adelaide newspaper. Here he's talking about his court case against a church minister:

The outcome of the Federal Court case was not clear-cut but Plimer says he won. "The battle that we won hands down, and wanted to win, was the public one," he says. "I wanted people to associate the word 'creationism' with the thought that, hang on, this might be a bit dodgy." The Australian Sceptics were so impressed they made Plimer a life member.

This does strongly suggest to me that Plimer has been a hero of the rational skeptics although, since he has espoused the contrarianism of climate change skepticism, he has lost support among that group. --TS 05:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. If the group is more noteworthy than I had first thought then his being 'made a life member' seems noteworthy enough. The changes that have since happened to the article seem fine. I'm still 'meh' over the placement, a passing thought is to rename the section from "political" to "social" (in line with how we have politics as a sub-cat of sociology) so that it doesn't seem out of place, but am not unduly bothered by it as it's linked and people can read the AS article themselves if they wish. Thanks.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

overkill to name Monbiot's book?

I hd thought it reasonable to identify Monbiot by one of his books as opposed to just as being a writer for the Guardian. This was reverted as "overkill" although it is well-sourced, indeed. Is it overkill to identify who the protagonists are in a section? Collect (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Monbiot wikilinked for that sort of data? If not, I'll fix. ► RATEL ◄ 05:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Article clutter, WP:Weight concerns

1. Monbiot debate: we really need a third-party comment, rather than quoting Monbiot, Plimer's opponent, as to the outcome. At one point, I thought this item had been reduced to a line or two? -- which seems an appropriate WP:Weight.

2. Copenhagen Climate Challenge: this appears to have been a very minor event, and is overweighted at present.

3. Australian Skeptics: this minor and debatable point should be deleted, imo. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

1. We have a 3rd party source, Quadrant. Please check the page properly before raising frivolous, knee jerk objections.
2. Not minor at all — was reported all over the place.
3. POV objection; ignored. More BAU per PT. ► RATEL ◄ 01:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WTH's BAU?? IAC, TS cleaned it up. Thx, Tony. Retagged Monbiot on Monbiot as unbalanced -- leave it be, please, Ratel: I hope you agree it's a problem. BTW, AGF. Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Plimer's own opinions on Climate email issue

Plimer has clearly stated his position online -- and his opinions, as such, wou.d be properly attributed to him. Editors, moreover, have removed his opinions due to "BLP concerns." I would like to know which living persons would be adversely affected by ascribing Plimer's opinions to Plimer. If none would be affected, then that is an invalid reason for keeping Plimer;s opinions out of an article about Plimer. The source, being a "blog" under editorial control of a journalistic organization is citable at least for opinions of the writers of the blog. Collect (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He is making serious claims about other people which are also under WP:BLP protection, as the comments amount to libel they are certainly not allowed under BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The material is being properly cited as opinion -- which does not appear to be in the category of claim which is affected by WP:BLP since no individuals are named as having committed any crimes. And I fail to see why "libel" is invoked here -- can you elucidate exactly what part is legally a problem for Misplaced Pages? Can you cite the WP policy which states that concern over "libel" affects material cited as opinion? Has Plimer been sued for libel at all on this? Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with your reading of policy, Kim. On the contrary, Misplaced Pages:Controversial_articles#Attribute_assertions says, "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant." As for Misplaced Pages:BLP, there is no such thing as "BLP protection" from criticism. On the contrary, BLP says that "Articles should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. ...Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources..." subject to considerations of due weight. --DGaw (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would support Kim on this issue, if his opinion about this person are controversial then it would be a blp issue even if these comments were correctly attributed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Might you show me where in policy is the statement that a person saying something nasty about a group of people who are not individually named, without any claim of a crime, is automatically against BLP? I can show you, for example in the Joe the Plumber article, actual examples of accusation of crimes which are allowed in a BLP. At what point do you become concerned enough to delete them? Collect (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is challenged as it is being here, it would be ok if the comment was a general reflection of the average ish commentary but if it is excessively from one side of the situation then it could be said to have been cherry picked and not representative of the general position. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to tell you this -- but people with strong opinions do not word them to be reflective of the opinion someone else wants them to have <g>. As he is not an "average ish" person, it is strange to bar his opinions because they are not "average ish." Are you averring that the material did not properly reflect Plimer's opinions as written? That would be one objection. If, however, they accurately reflect his opinion, then it would be improper for WP to alter his opinion. Are you rather saying that because he has a vastly different opinion from what you aver to be "average ish" that therefore his opinion ought not be in an article on him? I would love to see precedent for that argument, please. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We can quote Plimers opinions freely, except when they clash against WP:BLP. And in this case they do. BLP is not limited to any persons biography - but applies on all articles (and talk-pages) that contains claims about living persons. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to speak openly, imo it would be similar to adding the opinion of David Cameron about Gordon Brown, not really objective, it would be more reflective of an opinionated and biased position. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I would suggest it would be akin to having Cameron's view of Brown in Cameron;'s own article ... such as "Cameron criticised Gordon Brown (when Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer) for being "an analogue politician in a digital age" and referred to him as "the roadblock to reform"." which happens, in fact, to be in Cameron's article. Perhaos the analogy is hard to see? Collect (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although I don't really support the position that as it occurs in one article it can occur here, but I see your point that the road block comment is in the cameron article, although it has become quite a well known oft repeated comment, Brown was not really saying anything controversial there was he, it wasn't a comment that is an extreme position about a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) Since the real complaint appears to be the charge of a crime by unnamed people, removal of any such claim should be a valid cure for any BLP concerns. Collect (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. We should not be linking to what amounts to libel. Find somewhere else where Plimer has expressed himself on this topic, without the libel part. This is poorly sourced, and it contains claims about 3rd party.(see issue 2 under using the "subject as a self-published source" (in BLP) - and while this at times is interpreted liberally, these comments are over and beyond) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nolibel is cited. As for "self-published" -- the precedent in RS/N is that such sources by editorial columnists can be used for stating the opinion of the columnist. No third party is stated to have committed a crime in the quote, hence no "libel" is there. Besides, why try to hide this person's opinions if you regard him as off-the-wall? Collect (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but BLP is the overruling policy here. We can quote from almost everything that any person has said - except few cases where the source contains BLP violating claims about 3rd party. Just quote him from somewhere else - or is that a problem? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that finding the same comments from him from other than his own source would be acceptable -- but that using what are undeniably his own words from his own source (a published column) is not acceptable? Collect (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not what i'm saying. I'm saying that quoting his opinions from self-published sources are quite legitimate except in cases where his opinions (not just the quoted ones) constitute libel (and this without doubt does). Have you read the section of BLP i'm quoting? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the quote now in the article constitute "libel"? If I were to take your position literally, it would suggest that no article which has a libel within it (by someone's definition, as no suit has been brought) can not be cited for any purpose. Is that the position? I think it better that a person's opinions be placed in the open then concealed. Collect (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your interpretation above would be a fair assessment of the spirit of our BLP policy. We should avoid using sources containing dodgy statements about living persons. They're not reliable, you see. --TS 01:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Where a person's own words are used to show his own opinion, and no part relating to others which could possibly be a "libel" is cited, what is unreliable? Plimer is not reliable about his own opinions? Seems an odd position, to be sure. Collect (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's principally about editorial and legal quality control. The reason why we insist on third party sources for statements made about third parties is because they have gone through editorial scrutiny and (presumably) legal checking. The content might still be considered libellous, to be sure, but the fact that a third party has previously put it through an editorial and legal process gives us a degree of insulation. If we quote directly from something written by a self-published individual, we don't have that insulation - we are potentially incorporating libellous material directly into an article without filtering it through any third-party review. Note that under WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source, the restrictions listed "do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published". That reflects the editorial control present in autobiographies but lacking in self-published sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a question that might best be sorted out on Misplaced Pages:biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. My feeling is that if you link to an external piece that contains attacks prejudicial to living people then you're, in effect, endorsing that piece as reliable. Which it isn't. The fact that the attacks aren't actually mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article doesn't really give us much of a get-out, really. We should always strive to seek the distance that a third party report would provide. But other Wikipedians may differ, so I think it's worth going back and seeing if this situation has been considered before. --TS 07:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See my explanation above. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Posted. Meanwhile "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves." Which has generally been accepted to indicate that self-published opinions are not citable as fact, but only as opinions. Now if the site is noit "questionable" this limitation does not even reach. In short, are articles on the Pajamas Media site a RS as to the opinions of their authors? givea a bit of dramatis personae for the company, which appears to be a real company operating journalistic endeavors. They pay contributors (cites readily found). What is left is to see how it is used elsewhere on WP. The PM article is linked to in well over fifty WP articles. found PM a RS for a book review (which is opinion, of course). Searching assiduously, I did not find any RS/N discussion where the use of a person's own opinions published on a commercial site were found not to be usable. Collect (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A tad off topic, perhaps, but should be really be devoting 10% of the readable text in an article to a blog post that's not really central to Plimer's notability? Guettarda (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not (I haven't checked you 10% assertion). AGW is considered by many to be one of the greatest threats to the planet that exists today. Commentary regarding the validity of such a view is certainly noteworthy given that Plimer is known for being skeptical of the whole AGW position in the first place. --GoRight (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the DYK-check tool, your version has 7461 characters (1179 words) "readable prose size", while the version you rv'd has 6970 characters (1097 words). That's just shy of 10% of the words, a bit less if you go by character count. But again, why does his opinion on the CRU hacking amount to ~10 of his notability? It wasn't covered in major media. It strikes me as a lot less important than his entire professional career. Is what he thinks about this one incident (not climate change as a whole) really one of the big things about Plimer? Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for providing the source of your stats.

"Is what he thinks about this one incident (not climate change as a whole) really one of the big things about Plimer?" - Hmmm. A fair question. If you read his entire editorial he is discussing this incident within the context of climate change as a whole. So yea, I think that his point is meant to be taken as a larger indictment of the system than simply this one incident. For example, he also states "The same crooks control the IPCC and the fraudulent data in IPCC reports. The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world’s GDP to pass through an unelected UN government, and then on to sticky fingers in the developing world." I have only selected the portion of his overall piece that specifically addresses the CRU incident to conserve space. So does such an indictment of the system as reflected by this notable incident deserve 10% coverage in the BLP of someone that is acknowledged widely by his critics as being an AGW skeptic? Again, I don't see why not. --GoRight (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, but Plimer is entitled to his opinion and it is notable in his BLP given the significance of the Climategate scandal. As long as his opinion is cited as such, there is NO WP:BLP restriction on including it. The CRU is NOT immune from criticism. The source is an editorial written by Plimer so there is no doubt that this is his opinion, and it is published by Pajamas Media which is a notable media source. There is no restriction against using opinion pieces as sources for this type of criticism as long as it is properly attributed as the opinion of the author which it has been from the start. --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree and don’t see any BLP issue here as Pilmer’s opinions are properly attributed to him and are on his own BLP. WVBluefield (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusing people of "criminal" behaviour clearly falls under our BLP policy. It cannot be sourced to a blog. Guettarda (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous. The source is not a blog. It is a legitimate media source. --GoRight (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The URL is http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/. How is that not a blog? Guettarda (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And note that our standards are higher than mere libel. Guettarda (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not even close to libelous for us to cite those comments. The actual original comments are not even libel. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hence my comment. It doesn't have to rise to the level of libel to violate BLP. Guettarda (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The comment from Plimer is fine, why do you want to deny it? Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The pertinent question is: Why is this particular citation important? It clearly breaches BLP, so find another quote/citation that doesn't. No one is "deny"ing it - it is there, but it fails our policies - thus it can't go in. This is a biography - not a "Plimer thinks this about X" article where X is a current event. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not breach BLP. It is an editorial written by Plimer and published by a third party media source. The quotes are attributed as his opinion. This is all perfectly allowable under BLP and you know it. --GoRight (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The comment is "fine"? I don't see how. Can you explain how it's OK, per BLP, to call people "criminals"? Guettarda (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just take the criminal bit out, easy. Off2riorob (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And what about all the (unsubstantiated) accusations of professional misconduct? Guettarda (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no big issue with policy and libel and[REDACTED] wheels dropping off and this content, it is simply that the climate change supporters don't like it and that the climate change deniers do like it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, but BLP applies to all pages/articles - Plimers comments from an already unreliable source are accusing living persons of criminal conduct - and that is exactly what the BLP and SPS states must not be done. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Its sort of cute to see you invoke BLP when it suits your aims. WVBluefield (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lies. All lies.

"Plimers comments from an already unreliable source are accusing living persons of criminal conduct" - Who are these people he is maligning? Name them and show me where he maligns any living person. BLP does NOT apply to the CRU.

"and that is exactly what the BLP and SPS states must not be done." - This is NOT a self-published source. BLP does not forbid the use of editorials as long as they are attributed to the author's opinion. Show me the text of these policies that is being violated. --GoRight (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is a blog. That's clear from the URL. Guettarda (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Pajamas Media. Educate yourself. --GoRight (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Leaving this..In a November 25, 2009 editorial, Plimer stated his views on the CRU emails as follows: "Files from the UK Climatic Research Unit were hacked. They show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination. Off2riorob (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  And it hasn't occured to you that all of these are serious accusations (criminal) about living persons. Sourced from a blog no less. Sorry but that is a BLP violation. (see also the comments on BLP/N --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The CRU is not a living person. Who has he maligned? Name them. --GoRight (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting enough the persons involved are rather well-known (as you well know), Phil Jones is quite obviously one. Sorry - but that they aren't named explicitly doesn't make it less obvious who he is referring to. The emails doesn't involve that many people. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

For this content...it is not a big deal, imo. Anyway its just another locked up article now. Just like the email hacking article is locked up. Off2riorob (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Or...In a November 25, 2009 editorial, Plimer stated that Files from the UK Climatic Research Unit were hacked and said that he thought that figures had been massaged and data had been manipulated to show that medieval warming didn't occur and that the figures showing the 20th century warming had been exaggerated. Off2riorob (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this trimmed down version acceptable? Off2riorob (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, see WP:SELFPUB issue 2. (as well as the earlier discussions here, as well as on BLP/N). The source is not reliable for this. (and it is to all extents self-published, since PM isn't a reliable source on its own) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"No, see WP:SELFPUB issue 2." - Irrelevant, the source is not published by Plimer.

"and it is to all extents self-published" - This is a bald faced lie as you are well aware. What is the connection between Plimer and Pajamas Media that makes this a self-published editorial? Where's your evidence that Plimer has any control whatsoever over what Pajamas Media publishes? --GoRight (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please don't link to all these policy pages, it is allowed in some cases to add something from here or there, I am looking for a solution and have removed all of the contentious comments from the content and for what it is worth, why not add it as a solution to this problem? Off2riorob (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He is the author of the PJM piece and as such material from PJM that Pilmer has authored is allowed in the article. WVBluefield (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Stub-Class biography articles
• Stub-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Automatically assessed biography (science and academia) articles
• Automatically assessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Stub-Class Australia articles
• Unknown-importance Australia articles
• Automatically assessed Australia articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics