Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:31, 31 March 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heaven and Earth (book) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Template:Community article probation

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Heaven and Earth (book). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Heaven and Earth (book) at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia Low‑importance [REDACTED] Heaven and Earth (book) 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment: Climate change This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

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.

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.

Prot: Why?

Apart from some sock edits, there isn't a lot of reverting here, so it is unclear why the page is protected, let alone why it needs prot until 03:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC). So it isn't really clear what needs to be discussed to end the prot. Not that I care much, since it is prot on my version, in clear violation of WP:WRONG William M. Connolley (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A short protection is reasonable, to resolve brewing disputes. ATren (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Who's brewing a dispute? A semi protection would have stopped the problematic IP edits, and simple encouragement to get an account. The scibaby socks shouldn't result in no editing to the article being allowed. Verbal chat 13:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Viridae has a long-standing grudge against some of the editors here, and is best buddies with Cla68 (who is still griping about an argument he had with WMC three years ago). It's an attempt to annoy or provoke without actually editing the article. Don't take the bait. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if AT considers 2010 to be a short protection? Howver, as well as the clearly f*ck*d up duration, the question was: exactly which dispute are we being protected from? I don't see anyone attempting to discuss whatever the issue is supposed to be William M. Connolley (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if AT considers 2010 to be a short protection? No, of course not, but it's clearly not 2010. ATren (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit protection is a week. It's the move protection that goes to 2010. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, *I* f*ck*d that up. apologies, and striken William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that people just revert sensible improvements instead of giving them appropriate consideration and collaborating to further refine the text. The article is poorly written. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Spiffy, but vague. Care to be more precise about what changes you might like to see (you get extra bonus points if the current protection is even vaguely relevant to your suggestions, or perhaps more accurately V does) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You're too late on that, but nonetheless if you have suggestions for improvement please make them. If you don't have suggestions for improvement - please find another page to talk on William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm never late Connolley. But your personal attacks on Viriditas Viridae and snarky commentary are very unbecoming. It's really no wonder you lost your tools. One of the changes I made was to clarify that the "is a popular science book" bit is meant to indicate that the book is in the popular science genre not that it's a bestseller. If I'm mistaken on that feel free to correct me, but the link is to the genre and not to a sales category. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got the wrong V. You also need to read User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats, unless you're being deliberately impolite. Diff? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a series of edits including this one clarifying that one source was disputing another . A third party source would be needed to establish there are factual errors. Other edits follow. Are you not familiar with how edit history works? There's a tab at the top of the article page. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

is you downplaying IP's errors; I'm not sure why you think anyone else would regard that as an improvement. Don't bother to thank me for correcting you about the V's William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(24.205.142.176 was Scibaby too.) -Atmoz (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP's edit were no more problematic from a behavioural standpoint than anyone elses edits, so semi protection, locking one side out of a content dispute is clearly inappropriate. The article is protected because almost every edit for the 24 hours up until the protection was a revert of some form. Looking at the accounts that were edit warring, I see two of them have been blocked as socks, so will now remove the protection, as thre should be noone to continue that side of the revert war. Lastly SHB, next time you make accusations of bias, please provide supporting evidence, or don't make them at all. Viridae 20:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got your timeline a bit wrong. They had both been blocked before you applied protection. Lastly, V, next time you make protections, please make appropriate checks beforehand, or don't interfere at all William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with Viridae's actions here, and will note that Nishkid64 just locked Ian Plimer for similar reasons and longer duration, yet that action draws no charges of "interference". ATren (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid64 applied semi-protection, not full. That's the difference. -Atmoz (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I missed that. In any case, Viridae is uninvolved, and he protected it (on WMC's version, btw) when he saw what appeared to be a revert war on an article that was just involved in an edit war last week, then reversed it when parties informed him that the socks had been blocked. I see no problem with his actions. We don't all have finely tuned Scibaby radar. :-) ATren (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You're very forgiving when it suits you. It doesn't take much in the way of radar to spot Scibaby socks *when they have already been blocked* a point you seem to have lightly skipped over William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's called assuming good faith. Read about it sometime. :-) ATren (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection does seem appropriate here, given the repeated interventions by Scibaby sockpuppets. (Is there any way of blocking him for good, i.e. blocking the underlying IP address?) -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, Scibaby socks are named accounts not IPs, so semi-prot wouldn't even work, right? ATren (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

He uses both IPs and named accounts, in fact a very wide range of IP addresses (see here). Semiprotection requires not just a named account but an autoconfirmed account, i.e., at least four days old with ten edits. He does create "aged" socks to get around this but semiprotection would at least inconvenience him. His two latest sockpuppets here were new accounts so semiprotection would have helped. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I thought he used only autoconfirmed accounts. ATren (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Add word Skpetic

Could I please suggest the word 'Skeptic' be added to the first sentence after 'geologist' so the first line reads :

"Heaven and Earth: Global Warming — The Missing Science is a popular science book published in 2009 and written by Australian geologist, Skeptic and mining company director Ian Plimer."

Perhaps even make that 'Skeptic and Global Warming skeptic'?

Eg. "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming — The Missing Science is a popular science book published in 2009 and written by Australian geologist, Skeptic, Global Warming skeptic' and mining company director Ian Plimer."

With Global Warming linked with square brackets maybe?

BTW. Allison is wrong to say Plimer is "devout" - he was the '1995 Australian Humanist of the Year' & has strongly opposed religious extremists such as the Creationists. (Source: "About the Author" (biography) Page 4, Heaven & Earth' Plimer, Connor Court, 2009.) Also I've met him a few times if that personal experience counts for anything. He did not pray before meals or anything like that. (Nor did or would I - not that it matters.)

PS. Hope I'm doing this right.124.182.226.16 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC) StevoR

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Misplaced Pages community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Please see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservative press

To pretend that this received +ve reviews from all the press is obviously untenable. Although "skeptic" might be better, in the GW context William M. Connolley (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To say conservative press is not wp:npov your POV is not wp:rs as such i am going to revert you unless you actually have a ref which says that only the conservative press (and what is that btw?) gave positive reviews mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the paucity of our sourcing is at fault here. Only one source is cited: a piece by Andrew Pearson, who says in the piece that he was to be the Master of Ceremonies at the launch of the book! However you might want to represent that piece, it clearly isn't a book review. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with you tony, Pearson had obviously read the book based on what he wrote. So it is a review. And there are plenty of other reviews as well. But as i have yet to see a source which says it was well recieved by the Conservative press and as phrasing it like that is not even wp:npov then the conservative part really has to go mark nutley (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

unless you actually have a ref which says that only the conservative press - this is silly game-playing. You appear to be quite happy with "was well-received by the press" a statement for which you have no RS either. As TS, sources are few. So how about we cahnge it to "was well-received by The Australian? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• "His book has received glowing endorsements in the conservative press..." Just one of many such quotes available. ► RATEL ◄ 01:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a good source, I've added it. I'm sure that "glowing" will be seen as a positive addition William M. Connolley (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

MN is now reverting , on the grounds that "conservative" is intrinsically NPOV. This seems very dubious. We have a good source for "His book has received glowing endorsements in the conservative press" but no source at all for MN's preferred "The book received positive reviews from the press" William M. Connolley (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And you are reverting against policy. It is not for us to say if sources are conservative. to do so is wp:or It is fact that you did a blind revert here, as i had in fact removed that statement as it is already in the articles Reception and criticism section. But of course you could not be arsed to read the edit summary just did a blind revert. I am going to revert you per wp:npov if you have an issue with my edits perhaps you would be so kind as to talk first and not do your usual blind revert mark nutley (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You're not reading. The source itself says "His book has received glowing endorsements in the conservative press". There is no OR involved; you are merely knee-jerking against the "conservative" William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark's removal of sourced characterizations of well known conservative organs is puzzling to me. Why would we want to produce misleading copy, as some of these edits do? I await discussion with a view to establishing consensus on whether such removals can possibly be said to improve the article. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, how exactly are they sourced? To say that any newspaper is "conservative" is not wp:npov we just use what they write as sources, it is not for us to decide what a sources politics are. In fact to add labels to sources is wp:or and it is this which is misleeading. @ WMc your ref is from May 2, 2009 which is about two weeks after the book was published. How exactly does this manage to cover the entire worlds press? Your ref is as useless as your wp:or that certain sources should be called conservative in breach of wp:npov mark nutley (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

how exactly are they sourced? - err, well you see the after "from the conservative press"? That is what we call a "link". If you click on it with your mouse - use the left button - you follow the "hyperlink" to a "web page" where you find the text "His book has received glowing endorsements in the conservative press and been embraced by some federal MPs.". Now, if you are really so ignorant of how a source works, should you really be contributing here? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you really as bovine as you act? Not all uses of conservative has a ref, it also breaks wp:npov i see you do your usual and ignore my question and instead attack me. So i put it to you again, WILL you answer how exactly does a ref from two weeks after the book was published manage to cover the entire worlds press? One ref is not good enough to break wp:npov If you do not have an actual reason apart from pushing your POV into this article then i will of course remove them again per wp:npov mark nutley (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark, for NPOV reasons you will have to show that there is reasons to doubt the conservative comment, since the other is verifiable. That should be easy, where as the reverse, would be proving a negative. NPOV does not mean "equal time". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Am I imagining it, or is this "Mark Nutley" both insulting other editors here ("Are you really as bovine as you act?") and edit warring the article with a 3RR transgression, all without any sanction? Won't someone please report this? ► RATEL ◄ 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have insulted no-one, billy boys constant blundering about in his haste to insult me is as bull in a china shop as you can get, hence "Bovine" Care to show my three reverts as well btw? @ Kim one ref two weeks after the books release does not give leave to paste the word Conservative all over the article. As i said, it is not for us to decide what is left or right, we just report what the wp:rs say. To call any source "conservative" is introducing wp:or and is not wp:npov mark nutley (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What RS's we have for this, says conservative. You still haven't found any references to question whether that RS is correct or not, in which case we could discuss it. Finally, we are not doing OR, since we have an RS that makes the connection. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bull, one ref does not mean you can plaster your pov of sources all over an article.

• 1 the conservative broadsheet The Australian
• 2 conservative commentator Miranda Devine
• 3 Paul Sheehan, a conservative commentator
• 4 right-wing columnist Andrew Alexander
• 5 The Spectator, a conservative British magazine

How exactly does one ref from the age manage to cover all of the above? mark nutley (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you have referred to me as "rat" in an edit summary. Rather than report you, I'll join into the humorous spirit of your edits and refer to you as "nut", m'kay? Other editors may wish to do likewise, since you've set the precedent. Now, nut, please note that all uses of conservative are cited, if you look at the sources. The use of the conservative descriptor was thoroughly discussed in the archives of this page, and if you refuse to read the archives and continue to edit war the article, you will be reported, because this article is under probation and you are being disruptive. ► RATEL ◄ 22:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked in the archive, and there was no clear consensus to use labels on sources, and even if there was it matters not. Consensus changes. The use of "conservative and right wing" break wp:npov and they will have to go. You nor your friends get to add labels to sources based on your POV of them, it is against policy. Now if you actually have a policy based reason to label sources as they have been in this article lets hear it please mark nutley (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

MN has a point, the allegiances of each source needs to be referenced (1,2 & 3 are easy, since they are used in the WP articles - 3 not, and 4 does not seem to have an article) and why. Although much of CC skepticism has a right wing origin, not all right wingers are skeptic. Rather than referencing the general political leanings of the sources, it seems to me that the CC skeptic outlook of each needs to be noted and referenced to comply with NPOV. (Please move this to the article talkpage if more appropriate). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the complete lack of response to my above question i am assuming no-one actually has a policy based reason for labeling sources according to a certain POV, as such i will again remove the labels "conservative" per wp:npov and "right wing" per wp:blp and wp:npov

LessHeard has just said that the labelling is ok with suitable refs. Do not remove them. This is an issue where the partisanship of commentators is a key issue. ► RATEL ◄ 23:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And you have a ref for all uses of labels do you? Including the right wing one? Lets see them please mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why?

HiP reverted Ideas in it have been described as "so wrong as to be laughable" as "trivia". I find this hard to understand. Is the book universally agreed to be so bad that criticism as damming as this is mere "trivia"? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Glowing

Mackan reverted "glowing" on the grounds that it was silly . But it is a direct quote from the source William M. Connolley (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I made an edit that I think is fairly reasonable. It's perfectly acceptable to quote the source directly, but in cases when we do such, I think it's best we put quotes around the statements, and say who is saying what, because sometimes -- such as in this case -- I think the choice of words might be less than encyclopedic. I mean, we wouldn't want to just flatly assert that the source is "fucking stupid" if The Age happened to use those words in its article, would we? I know I wouldn't. Macai (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think is fine, except perhaps people won't know what The Age is William M. Connolley (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can something from a source not still be silly? To say the conservative press gave glowing reviews is mostly a clever way of saying it's a thoroughly partisan book. That's fine for a newspaper, but I'd say it's a little silly for our purposes. Attributing it in the text is better, but as far as the lead goes, I'd prefer my wording. Mackan79 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well yes it *could* be silly. But given that is the source we are using there must be a presumption that the source isn't silly, or else we wouldn't be using it. I can't see it as silly at all; I can see that one might dislike it. But given that it is a direct quote from the source we are using, and is moreover a quote about exactly the bit we're talking about, it seems quite reasonable to use it. If the source isn't good enough, we should find another. I can't tell one Australian newspaper from another; maybe The Age is rubbish; I wouldn't use the Daily Mail as a source for anything other than its own opinions, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for depersonalizing. I don't like or dislike it, and from what I can see it's correct. The question is simply how to use it here. "Glowing praise" is tongue in cheek, like saying they salivated over it, etc. Thus, we'd have to attribute it. But considering this is the second paragraph of the lead, I'm just saying it strikes me as more sensible to paraphrase it into something less stylistically charged. Mackan79 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Australian

I noticed that The Australian, which is used as an example of a conservative source giving it a "glowing" review, also had someone else say that the content of the book was "so wrong as to be laughable". This to me implies that The Australian is giving mixed messages. While my most recent edit to the article is just a wording alteration, I think it might be a good idea to find another example of a "glowing" review from a conservative source. You know, one that doesn't turn around and insult the book next month. It might read a bit more coherently, you know? Macai (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

More sources would be good. But you should consider the possibility that the book really is bad, and is being praised for ideaological reasons, in which case it isn't too surprising that a later part of the paper - which is presumably not a monolith - should return to reality William M. Connolley (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned with whether the book is bad or not. I'm just saying that if The Australian might not be the best example of a conservative source giving it a glowing review, since it also gives it a rather bad review later on. I just think it's an editorial discretion that makes a lot of sense. If I wanted to give an example of someone who absolutely loves World of Warcraft, I wouldn't cite a blog post from said person saying that World of Warcraft was absolutely fantastic, and then in the same paragraph cite another blog post saying that it made him want to gouge his eyes out. Likewise, if I wanted to give an example of a source that gave a book a particularly favorable review, I wouldn't cite a favorable review from a particular news outlet, and then in the same paragraph cite another review from that same news outlet describing how god awful it is. Now, this isn't something I feel very strongly about. I'm not going to try to push this idea through if it doesn't sit well with other editors. It's just something I thought merited being brought up. Macai (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Australian is a conservative newspaper, of that there is no doubt or debate. The newspaper is famous in Australia for its AGW scepticism, so much so that's it's been dubbed "The Australian's War on Science" . The paper has carried numerous positive mentions of the Plimer book from its many conservative commentators, and one (I think) negative review from an occasional (guest) correspondent. Hope this helps. ► RATEL ◄ 23:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles
• Start-Class Australia articles
• Low-importance Australia articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• Start-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics