Revision as of 08:47, 9 February 2010 editJprw (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,936 edits →Needs work← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:03, 9 February 2010 edit undoWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,050 edits →Whitewashing starting?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
:"The author must "cite" other sources maybe we can incorporate those other views a bit" | :"The author must "cite" other sources maybe we can incorporate those other views a bit" | ||
:I agree -- that will almost certainly be one of the ways forward. Also, I'm waiting for more critical reviews to appear in the press -- none at all have appeared stateside. I'd prefer to get back to this at the weekend when I have more time. Thanks for the suggestions. ] (]) 08:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | :I agree -- that will almost certainly be one of the ways forward. Also, I'm waiting for more critical reviews to appear in the press -- none at all have appeared stateside. I'd prefer to get back to this at the weekend when I have more time. Thanks for the suggestions. ] (]) 08:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Whitewashing starting? == | |||
I just reverted some edits that replace "asserts" with "describes" . I don't think these are acceptable - Bookers version of reality isn't the real one, and this page should not say it is ] (]) 09:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:03, 9 February 2010
It is requested that a diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Misplaced Pages:Requested images. |
Books Unassessed | |||||||
|
Environment: Climate change Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
tags
Within two minutes of my creating this page a "notable" banner appeared at the top. This seems a little excessive. Jprw (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to be able to include graphs in the article but don't have the technical know how to do this -- hence the banner at the top and a request for help in this connection from other editors. Cheers,Jprw (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
wikilinking
{{orphan|date=February 2010}} has been removed for noe..will give editor a few days to fix this!! Hello we need to wiki link this article to other articles ..by aading this tile to see also sections in related articles..I will start!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Update ok i have wikilinked a bit see here...will will have to do some more..PS nice article!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Needs work
This article needs to carefully seperate out Bookers very "skeptical" views of climate change from the scientific view thereof, which are very different. I have no objection to the article saying "Booker says <odd thing X>" but simply "<odd thing X>" isn't acceptable. I've fixed up some of those.
As to Moscow July 2004: this isn't a garbled ref to World Climate Change Conference, Moscow, is it?
William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
It would appear not -- this is how Booker describes it:
"The Russians decided to stage a high-level international seminar in Moscow on 7 and 8 July 2004, chaired by Putin's chief economic adviser Alexander Illarionov." (Booker, page 114). King apparently appealed to the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw (who was also in Moscow at the time on different business) about the make up of the scientists who had been invited (among them Nils-Axel Morber and Reiter). Best, Jprw (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hold on, we have chronology problems. Chapter 6 "culminates" in Dimmock et al ("The controversy included in a court action in the UK.") but chapter 7 includes TGGWS. Dimmock et al was *about* TGGWS William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure? Dimmock et al seems specifically to be connected with the showing of An Inconvenient Truth in English state schools Jprw (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- It should be less "skeptical' however...is a book with a very specific views..we cant loss that fact when neutralizing the article..but what your doing is just perfect i think..Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- POV tag removed ..this is the 5th different tag this article has seen in 5 days.There is going to be a big problem with POV dew to the fact its a POV book ..so we need to balance it all out ..wont be easy...Buzzzsherman (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a real problem with the use of primary sources - about 80% of the "readable text" is cited to the book itself. The second problem is formatting - is there any reason why the chapter titles are bolded, or why the paragraphs start with "Chapter x: Name of chapter"? Guettarda (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a fair point, but I would hope that eventually other sections would be added and expanded to balance out the synopsis. As for formatting, I'm sure that there may be better alternatives available. Best, Jprw (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You are right on that point (other sections needed) however if your hoping not to see those tags again ..you need to even out the bias tone !! now i see that is hard to do seeing the fact its a book dealing with basically one side of a subject...but even the author must "cite" other sources maybe we can incorporate those other views a bit!...PS i have no clue about the subject in question i am just here because you asked for help (editors help desk) with all those tags.. We have taken care of most ...we need to link this up more and try to neutralizes it a bit more..or people will places those tags back!! And if your done using {citing} all those quotes We should remove them...... Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- "The author must "cite" other sources maybe we can incorporate those other views a bit"
- I agree -- that will almost certainly be one of the ways forward. Also, I'm waiting for more critical reviews to appear in the press -- none at all have appeared stateside. I'd prefer to get back to this at the weekend when I have more time. Thanks for the suggestions. Jprw (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Whitewashing starting?
I just reverted some edits that replace "asserts" with "describes" . I don't think these are acceptable - Bookers version of reality isn't the real one, and this page should not say it is William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Categories: