Talk:Bishop Hill (blog)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merger template

Shouldn't a merger template be on this article per se, and not the talk page? I notice that other articles have that merger template right up front. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Slapping an RfC on top of a merger discussion

The merge discussion had consensus before SlimVirgin slapped an RfC on top of it. The RfC can in no way stall something for 30 days that had consensus before the RfC was posted. Polargeo (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way I took part in a merge discussion and not an RfC but suddenly I find my comments are part of an RfC [1]. This goes against wikipedia principles. How can someone suddenly decide my comments are part of an RfC? Polargeo (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. I was the one who re-started the discussion on merger. It was not done as part of any other process. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please keep discussion focused on improving our coverage of this topic. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OK, so here is the deal I offer: I revert back to the merged version, cos there is clear consensus for doing so. LHVU blocks me for it (or not, in which case this "deal" is moot). I put up an unblock template - abuse of authority, clear consensus, not edit warring, whatever - and you unblock me. OK? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Odd I don't do deals. I am not acting as an admin here just an editor. I would not unblock you unless someone had made a very clear mistake in blocking you and I could not contact them to reverse their decision within a reasonable timeframe. Polargeo (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Attempting to arrange deals what is going on here? Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC) ZOMG! On-wiki skullduggery right in the open! Have these people no shame? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Editing wikipedia is not about getting yourself blocked and attempting to arrange that someone unblocks you, thats basically disruptive WMC and you should take a step back, you are overly involved in this. Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC) You need to have a word with LHVU then, don't you? At least I'm not reverting to my favourite version and then protecting it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Article protected again (cut'n'pasted from Talk:Andrew Montford)

I have now reprotected the article after reverting a merger / redirect and subsequently banned the editor concerned from editing the page until the conclusion of the RfC on the merger. I have noted my actions and requested a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of actions, where I suggest all comments should be redirected, and noted same on the Climate Change Probation request talkpage. All requests for article page edits should be made here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

All this redirect stuff is *so* confusing, isn't it? You're on the wrong talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Right, I have unprotected again - please can we have consensus that there is consensus prior to any further redirect? Should the article be redirected to a merge, it needs to be in a manner where there is no reasonable disagreement from the participants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I do think this an unworkable standard, though, as there will always be some degree of disagreement, and what constitutes "reasonable" (as opposed to unreasonable) disagreement is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not saying this just be cute, but rather because I think we need to be realistic, and we should strive for a decision making process that has a chance at resulting in something other than a stalemate. I'm not sure what that process is, but requiring "consensus that there is consensus" and "no reasonable disagreement" won't do. It sounds good on paper, and it's fine for vast majority of non controversial articles, but it hasn't worked in practice on articles like this one. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Yilloslime. What's been outlined is a recipe for stalemate and thus, in effect, a recipe for the status quo in this article. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreasonable might be someone with a pov that has been addressed but does not form part of the consensus demanding that there can be no consensus unless their point is adopted, or someone who does not discuss their pov but merely states it also not agreeing there is consensus in the same manner as before. I think I am asking that a majority the participants to the RfC not only agree where consensus lies, but also agree that there is consensus before enacting it. That last should mean that any opposition beyond that point is not reasonable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Per YS: your requirements are unreasonable: there is a (demonstrated) minority of fanatics who will not agree under any circumstances to a merger. So: we have a moajority for a merger, and have had for some time before your ill-advised interventions. But that isn't good enough for you. You now want... what? Yet another poll, this one to agree that they agree? And if that passes, you'll then insist on a poll that we agree that we agree that we agree, and so on to infinite regress? Please just accept that your intervention has failed. Please go away William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dr Connolley, even your experiment with politeness will fail to deter me in ensuring that this article and others within the Climate Change probation remit will be conducted under accordance with policy. You shall have your merger, barring the discovery of some source that confers sufficient independent notability on the subject, once the RfC has run its course. Had you entered upon this voyage of discovery of the benefits of politeness earlier you might have had it already, but you chose confrontation over co-operation and derision over debate. Your standard practices of belligerence and bullying have failed again. Please learn that lesson, and stay. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your standard practice of encouraging waste-of-time has succeeded, yet again. Wiki is the poorer for it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Prot (again)

discussion is here now
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you're wondering where the discussion on the new abusive prot is - LHVU has managed to leave it at Talk:Andrew Montford William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC) I couldn't find the abusive prot discussion there, so I cut'n'pasted the one I had left there by mistake and which can now be found above this discourse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Nice attempt at baiting though, WMC. :-) ATren (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you for making it clear that you have no purpose here other than to add pointless comments that have nothing to do with improving the article William M. Connolley (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported sentence

{{editprotected}} The sentence "The interview was first posted on the Bishop Hill blog." is not supported by any source, and should be removed. The mention in the Channel 4 reference cited after that sentence is quoted in full, and makes no mention that I've found of "first posted". The sentence quoting that article duplicates the statement already given in the first sentence of the paragraph, and the two sentences could preferably be merged. . . dave souza, talk 20:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think Channel 4 wrote The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog, run by climate sceptic Andrew Montford, will come as an embarrassment to the enquiry's chair Sir Muir Russell. if not for the fact that it was posted there first? mark nutley (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, if your source for being posted there first is that it's obvious, note that wikipedia's policy on verifiability states "This policy requires that anything challenged ... be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." Given that the "first" has been challenged, you need to find a source for "first." Just because it's obvious to you doesn't make it obvious to Dave (or to me, honestly). Is there no way for you to accept losing gracefully here, or is it imperitive for you to include the unverified word "first?" If you must include it, why, and what source "directly" supports it? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mate but i did not actually write that. I`m just using my common sense based on what is written in the channel 4 and the guardian pieces. mark nutley (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As inapropriate as this sounds, WP:V is clear - you can use "common sense," right up untill someone says they don't think you're right, then you need to not interpret sources. Would you mind terribly if I removed the word "first?" Hipocrite (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not at all mark nutley (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing "first" seems reasonable, or changing it to "one of the first". But without a source we can't declare that it was the first. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The policies should be applied with common sense. If Channel 4 credited the blog, then of course it means the blog got there first. Journalists would rather pull their own teeth out than credit anyone else, much less some blog. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• A reasonable assumption... but there is of course the hypothetical situation that the journalist wasn't aware that others were first... Who knows how many other blogs (or other such media) had already noticed this - the only reasonably certain thing is that the journalist was only aware of BH. Common sense is good, but it doesn't replace the requirement for adequate sourcing or remove the requirement of no original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• (ec) No, that's not correct (and OR to boot). It might imply, even by Slim's reasoning, that Channel 4 got it from BH. That does not imply the BH was "the" first in any way. In this particular case, it's obvious that China Radio International published the interview it first... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This blogs notability

I see some comments in other sections which say the blogs only claim to fame is the climategate scandal. This is not the case, the blog first came to prominence when Caspar and the jesus paper and The Yamal Implosion was published. This was picked up in the blogosphere and has been mentioned in the MSM. Roger A. Pielke, Jr. has said And if you don't know what this is about, good luck catching up to speed (but if you want to try, there will be no better place than Bishop Hill's recounting). Such is the complexity of the issue and its history about the Yamal Implosion write up on bishop hill. This write up also got into the MSM read this fascinating narrative by blogger BishopHill Bruce Robbins in The Courier wrote starting his own Bishop Hill blog to put the climate change sceptic's point of view. After the publication of a paper charting the hockey stick story up to that point, the number of readers of his blog increased practically overnight from 300 to 30,000 per day[2] So the blog was notable before climategate. From climategate we have two scoops as well which are highly notable. The resignation of Campbell and Paul Dennis posting his account of the police interview. Can people really say this blog has not made a mark on the world? mark nutley (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, please go ahead and add the information from the political blogging book, as that is a reliable source and help establish the blog's notability. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Content of Dale entry

I used the Amazon "search inside this book" function to read the reference to Bishop Hill in the Dale book. If anything it undermines significantly this blog's notability from a Wikipedia standpoint. It does not even name the author of the blog, does not substantively describe the blog, and does not even say that it is related to global warming! It says "Bishop Hill uses his blog as a refuge from the twin blights of work and television and as a way of interacting with interesting people from around the world. It is also useful for avoiding DIY and lawn-mowing." This underscores my view that this blog just is not notable. I've been away for a few days and I'm amazed at the amount of energy that has been wasted on this insignificant blog.ScottyBerg (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we include the Iain Dale info in the article, exactly? [3]. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason we should not go off on a one sided rant either way (i.e. his blog content should not be used to push his opinions without response as is currently, strangely being enforced by LHvU). This is a person's Blog and should be dealt with as part of their own BLP in a balanced way. Your addition was not balanced in any way. Polargeo (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I included pretty much every though Dale, a reliable secondary source, included about this non-notable blog. What balancing information did I miss? Hipocrite (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because Dale has a rant against Montford which would be construed as a personal attack if he was a wikipedia editor it is not justifiable for wikipedia to repeat his attack word for word. A brief summary of his opinion is fine though. However I would say that this is best covered under Montford's BLP. Polargeo (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see it as a rant when I typed it in. I still don't. Where is the ranting? Hipocrite (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You were simply repeating a put down verbatim i.e. "refuge" from television, lawn-mowing and work, and a way to meet people around the world this is not a good way for wikipedia to cover the information about a living person. Polargeo (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the reference? I didn't see my edit, or the reference as a put-down, but it's not important enough for me to continue at this point. It appears that our article on this irrelevent blog must be a haiography for some reason - so be it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did not interpret that quote as a rant or a personal attack. If this book is to be mentioned, this quote is needed for otherwise it gives an incorrect impression. As you can see, Dale believes that this blog is nothing more than an innocuous pastime for this person. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No it should not be a hagiography, it should be merged and reduced to bare facts about the blog and not over inflated in any way. It is currently over inflated and coatrackish. Polargeo (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In other words I agree with your addition from a balance POV but I think that this article should not need to be balanced. It should be reduced and BLPs on wikipedia should not simply repeat every personal attack verbatim that is going in other media. This is not what we are here for. Polargeo (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

By not need to be balanced I mean it should have a lot of stuff removed from it so that you do not need to balance it with these comments. However, I fear that LHvU would ban me should I remove any of the coatrack content in the current article. Polargeo (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Then why not let the sentences Hipocrite added remain? Otherwise it's just not balanced and gives an incorrect idea of Dale's assessment of the blog. I urge you to reinstate it. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I read the same thing and I agree with your assessment about its lack of relevance. It's actually a short biographical profile of Montford, apparently dating from the time before he turned his blog into an outlet for climate change denial. It might be relevant to the Andrew Montford article as background on the man, but it's certainly not relevant to this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If this book's entry predates Bishop Hill being a climate change-related blog, then I agree that the reference to the Dale book is irrelevant and needs to be removed in its entirety. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it`s relevent to the blog, in fact before the article was blanked it said that this blog started off with a focus on politics but switched over the CC after montford got interested in McInytre`s work on CA mark nutley (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's relevant, than the quote needs to be there, pending merger. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the quote being there, i do of course have an issue with a merger when one is not needed mark nutley (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe it should go back in. I've asked Polargeo to restore it. I would add it back in myself, but I've noticed that people have been blocked at the drop of the hat on these pages, and I don't want that to happen to me. As an aside, I urge administrators to ease up on the blocking, as it impedes the improvement of this article and discourages active participation. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Dunno why people are so worried about being blocked for doing simple edits, go take a look now and tell me what you think mark nutley (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That's better, thanks. I've expanded it a little. If this blog is to have an article of its own, this has to go in there I think. It is one of the few independent assessments of the blog. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, and your edit is better than mine :) mark nutley (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but you know a couple of editors have expressed reservations, and I'd like to hear them further on this. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The passage was reverted. I'd like to see it discussed a bit, but to be frank I think the larger and more important issue is merger, and I'd rather let this lie than be distracted from that. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There is not really a consensus for a merger though is there, i feel it would be best to work on adding content to the article rather than remove it mark nutley (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep watching the night sky. After another three phases of the moon we should know whether there is a consensus, as well as a consensus for a consensus or a consensus for a consensus for a consensus for a...... ;) ScottyBerg (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)