Talk:Heaven and Earth (book)

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 [1]. 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)

[2] 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^Talk 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)

RS ,Weight, BLP concerns: "denialist" quote in "Other reactions"

We presently close the article with a quote from Lyn Allison, an Australian politician, sourced to the obscure Australian Rationalist Journal, and reprinted online at another site. I'm questioning whether this is a WP:reliable source, and whether we are giving WP:undue weight to this opinion piece, considering its source. Note that the author calls Plimer "Murdoch hacks’ pet denialist", a WP:BLP issue, so the article's sourcing needs to be especially carefully considered. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The person quoted is a major identity in Australia, having led one of the 3 major political parties for years. If you think the source has a history of unreliability, take it up at the RS noticeboard, not here. AFAIK, it is entirely reliable in its quoting of this politician. I also note here that you have started about 20 sections on this talk page and its archives with a similar format and theme to this one, IOW "concerns" or "problems" with sections that in any way show IP or his book in a negative light, usually without any foundation to your argument. It is bordering on tendentious editing, Tillman. ► RATEL ◄ 01:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Tillman, it's not tendentious, don't be baited into responding to such attacks. I'm on the fence regarding that particular quote; I suggest you take it to BLP/N if you have concerns. ATren (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Ratel, WP: assume good faith, please. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that there are other sources that have commented on the extensive quoting and praise of Plimer by News Corporation's organs, so Allison's views are not isolated. In addition, the "Other reactions" section is grossly overweight with positive opinions of the book (indeed, except for Allison's views, all the rest are glowing comments). ► RATEL ◄ 01:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[removed comment by another scibaby sock] ► RATEL ◄ 03:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Other editors may want to read (or skim) Allison's "Plimerphiles: the dangerous delusions of Murdoch hacks’ pet denialist". It's quite a remarkable piece of invective: Regarding Plimer's views, she writes:

"A step has arguably been taken back in the direction of the Dark Ages when anyone putting science above the mutterings of the supernatural did so at risk of being burned alive. It is no coincidence that Plimer is devout (the notorious Catholic George Pell is a fan)." Etc., etc. It's no surprise she had to go to something like the "Australian Rationalist Journal" to get the thing published.

And, of course, her article must be read in context: a defeated politician hoping to find an issue for a comeback. Which brings up the obvious question of WP:undue weight.

Anyway, the attraction of this piece for Ratel is that she calls Plimer a "denialist". Nothing else there that's not already in our article, from actual WP:reliable sources. Including the "denialist" charge.

Please note that "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." -- WP:BLP I don't think this piece, or source, meets BLP standards, and I challenge the editor who added it to demonstrate that it does. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this quote from a questionable source per BLP. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1) In the Australian context, Allison is definitely notable. 2) The source has never had charges of unreliability brought against it. 3) The section has undue weight of positive opinions of this fringe view book. Quote stays. ► RATEL ◄ 23:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Synopsis" section wrong

I quote from page 470 of the book:

Global warming hysteria is big business. Just follow the money. Various green movements claim that those who do not accept the hypothesis that humans are causing climate change have this view because they are supported by the petroleum and coal industries. A US Senate report shows that the greens are the best-funded quarter of the advocacy industry. Between 1998 and 2005, the 50 biggest green movements in the USA attracted revenue of $22.5 billion. This is the GDP of a few impoverished African countries. Such funds could provide massive improvements in the health of millions of people and would have a far greater environmental impact on the planet than advocacy.

After reading the book, I can tell you that our Synopsis section is nowhere near right. The book is full of vitriol and accusations of conspiracy, like someone shouting from a box in the village square, not the reasoned debate our section implies. The passage I quote above is the norm. Not sure how to address this deficiency... ► RATEL ◄ 16:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And you will have to find reliable sources for such. Otherwise it is original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we did have Plimer quoted extensively from one of his press articles (already a source on the page) originally, saying exactly what he says in his book, but someone, Tillman or Alex Harvey, I think, removed a lot of it diff diff then, when it was replaced, IIRC started a sebsection on this page saying that this was a "problem" and gradually reduced the Synopsis section to unrepresentative pap. Because we never had the book, they were allowed to get away with it. Specifically, Plimer uses the phrases, "urban elites" "environmental atheist imposing a new religion" "pompous scientists out of touch with the community" and so on, extensively in the book. This is what's missing from the synopsis. ► RATEL ◄ 02:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Echo what KDP said. --GoRight (talk) 18:18, 25 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia: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..." [3] 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 [1] 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)