Talk:William M. Gray

RealClimate

I want to move a couple of threads which are focused on RealClimate to a common section to have a focused discussion here. I have posted a comment on the BLP page where they are discussing these very points and pointed them to this section. Please feel free to comment here but please don't remove the section.

Topic 1: Relevance of RC as being an "established expert on the topic of the article"

The topic of this article is William Gray. RC is comprised of experts on GW and seek to include self-published criticisms of Gray's statements on GW. Does RC qualify for this exception?

RealClimate.org is a sham organization setup by Jone, et. al, It is a self referencing situation. Jines and friends refer to RC and RC refers to Jones and friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.130.47 (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

See the personal exchange section for examples of the real world dynamics of the discussion.

Topic 2: "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"

The RC contributors have clearly published works in the area of GW in reliable third-party publications. To my knowledge they have not publish anything on William Gray in reliable third-party publications. Do RC's unrelated (to William Gray) publications on GW meet the standard intended by this phrasing, or does the work published in the third party sources have to be have to be substantially the same as is being referenced in their WP:SPS?

See the personal exchange section for examples of the real world dynamics of the discussion.

Topic 3: With respect to the RealClimate reference, is it just me or does anyone else object to the fact that the article in question is anonymous? We have no idea who actually wrote the piece in question. I can accept the credentials of the primary contributors as individuals but the credentials of some anonymous author? If they want to be taken seriously they should at least sign their names to the piece. --GoRight 06:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Group RC posts are the work of all. Of course William M. Connolley 14:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And if the membership should change how does some future reader know who was actually being referenced here? --GoRight 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Topic 4: Is RealClimate a legitimate legal entity? In other words is it incorporated somehow? The question is relevant here because one of the primary concerns in WP:BLP is avoiding libel suits to Wikipedia.

If some news organization, say the New York Times, anonymously publishes an editorial criticizing someone and that person considers the editorial to be libelous who do they sue? The New York Times, of course, because the NYT is a legitimate legal entity and can be sued. And being a legitimate legal entity which can be sued they in some sense indemnify Wikipedia if there is a reference to that anonymous editorial here.

I am not claiming anything related to the discussion above is libelous, but theoretically what would happen if Wikipedia referenced an anonymous article on RealClimate (or any other unincorporated source) and someone actually wanted to sue for libel? Who do you sue? All of the RealClimate's current contributors at the time of the suit? The ones present at the time the article was written (assuming that can be determined)? And to what level is RealClimate indemnifying Wikipedia against such suits?

Is this something that Wikipedia should be concerned with?

--GoRight 14:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So your argument is that we shouldn't reference RC because it would be difficult for Gray to sue them? That seems more than a bit convoluted. Raymond Arritt 14:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is (or rahter would be, had it any merit) a generic BLP issue. Take it there William M. Connolley 14:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia likely has the same forum exception to libel suits as other forum providers, like AOL chat rooms. WP is more of a gray area in certain respects, though. As for RC, unincorporated organizations sue and get sued all the time. It's not some huge mystery, especially when there are identified members who can be sued. This is all ridiculous anyway, though, since nothing RC has said about Gray is libelous. I'm wasting pixels here, - as William said, this discussion belongs elsewhere. Brian A Schmidt 15:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I am. But I wish to refer to this page as a real life example. But you never answered my question, is RC a valid legal entity? --GoRight 14:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Red herrings don't smell so great. Raymond Arritt 15:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't think anything discussed above by RC is libelous. I just think that RC is a bit of a special case that the BLP policy should address and since they are already discussing these exact issues I took the opportunity to put some thoughts together and to bring them into the policy discussion.

As I said on WC's talk page, my goal here is to have a policy that addresses their unique circumstances so that we can avoid these silly disagreements on every single page. I'll abide by the policy as long as it is clear. The current one isn't as evidenced by our discussions here and those going on in the BLP discussion page. --GoRight 16:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

GoRight - You are absolutely correct as far as "anonymous articles" goes - they can not possibly be considered RS under any circumstances whatsoever, particularly when they are posted to a highly polarized advocacy blog. Not only is their no peer review, there is no author. There must be an author--or it is just "hearsay" or "rumor"--and anonymous articles, which can not be laid at the doorstep of some individual(s) should never be quoted, anywhere. If the people at RC, for example, wish their material to be taken seriously, then they should append their name/names to their statements. Then we, the readers, might know "who says so?". Who would take a paper seriously, even if published in a major journal, if it had no acknowledged authors? (of course, the journal would never publish it in the first place without the authors names...but that's my point.) So, to summarize, the use of the referenced RC blog page violates RS (blogs are not RS) and "?" -- there must be a Wiki policy that says you can't quote anonymous persons!

KipHansen (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley et al

I was surprised to see that William M. Connolley, aka Mr. "I consider him a reliable source", [see 'My Discussion with Mr. Connolley' on this discussion page above], is still attempting to hijack this BLP page to fight his personal battle against anyone that dare disagree with his personal position on AGW (aka Global Warming or Climate Change).

I agree with the level-headed administrators who point out that this BLP page is weighted way way to heavily on Dr. Gray's opinions on climate change and too lightly on his reason for being in the encyclopedia in the first place--his standing as [one of] the world's leading hurricane prediction expert[s].

Connolley's continuing efforts to malign people who disagree with him (or his intellectual/scientific camp), by injecting negative opinions about them or their work, in their BLP pages is misguided and violates basic WP policy. Global Warming or Climate Change issues that their own extensive entries where these issues can be presented or discussed.

I believe that Mr. Connolley knows perfectly well that this is inappropriate, but continues to carry on his campaign against his intellectual rivals on this issue--on this and other BLP of scientists that have differing views on climate change.

I would suggest to the larger body of Wiki administrators to investigate whether this is an ongoing intentional violation by Mr. Connolley. If it is, Wiki policy for handling offenders should be enforced.

KipHansen 00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The editor seems to be respecting the consensus on this page, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up weeks later. If this is a continuing problem, you should find current examples of it and take it to the appropriate forum. Article talk pages are not the correct place for user disputes. Cool Hand Luke 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Kip, searching for your Wikipedia edits seems to show a political position - there's nothing wrong with that, so long as the edits are accurate, which is the case for Connolley. And for someone who's claimed repeatedly to fear libel suits against wikipedia, these gratuitous and false insults you've made against him seem somewhat contradictory. Are you really so concerned for the greater benefit of wikipedia, or are you just driving your viewpoint?Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool - thank you for weighing in on this. I apologize for jumping in on this "after the fact" but I find it frustrating that so many people have to waste so much time on such silly issues. BLP pages are NOT the correct forum for advocating one's personal opinions on Hot Topic Controversy issues such as Global Warming, and active antagonists in the controversy should not be editing the BLP pages of other persons involved in the controversy .... almost all of the above (entire talk page) is the result of this type of thing.

Brian - I'm sure Mr. Connolley can defend himself.

BLP - What belongs in this BLP are Dr. Gray's opinions - clearly and fairly stated and referenced to RSs. Other people's opinions about Dr. Gray's opinions belong on their BLP pages or in the Wiki article on that controversy. It should be enough to say that Dr. Gray's opinions about Global Warming (linked to article)differ significantly from those contained in recent IPCC reports (linked).

Peter Webster section - Personally, I feel the whole Peter Webster section is inappropriate in a BLP. It is easy to find someone who has said critical things about anyone. That doesn't mean that they are significant enough to include in the persons BLP.

KipHansen (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not always agreed with William H. Connolley, but after a brief (somewhat heated) debate, he respected consensus. That's the way it's supposed to work, isn't it? As for the Webster quotes, they're well sourced and not defamatory, and they come from a respected source (one of his colleagues, in fact). As long as we have a long section on his GW views, there's no reason why we can't have a well-sourced criticism of those views. As for whether that long section on his GW views should be shortened - well, that's been another point of contention (see above). ATren (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

ATren - Yes - I had a similar debate with Connolley earlier as well. I will only point out that one shouldn't have to fight the same fight over and over with the same editor/admin when the issue is clear Wiki Policy.

I do firmly believe that Wiki policy will have to change or be clarified on BLP - the idea that Connelly and other vigorous viewpoint advocates (on Connolley, see his personal blog or just his comments above) are allowed to edit the biographies of their intellectual/viewpoint "opponents" strikes me as absurd - how can anyone expect them to be dispassionate and impartial.

The idea that strongly polarized "single viewpoint advocacy blogs" (such as RC or junkscience) can be considered WikiRS is equally absurd - with the exceptions allowed within the rule - such as if Dr. Gray has written a response to something on the blog, then his response could be quoted - if it was possible to verify that he had actually made the post.

Webster section - ATren, if you read the Webster section, you find that he does not actually criticize Dr. Gray's ideas or theories. He claims to have been part of an "anonymous peer review" and then talks about it. Reading the whole newspaper article reveals that Webster "had to recuse myself because of the ad hominem attacks he's been making." In other words, he was miffed at Dr. Gray and felt he couldn't fairly review Dr. Gary's proposals. For which he is to be commended, btw. Others who disagree with or "are miffed at" Dr. Gray should do the same, on this BLP, recuse themselves and leave biographies to others, who haven't any axe to grind.

21:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If those who disagree with Gray must recuse themselves, it stands to reason that those who agree with him must recuse themselves as well. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Raymond - You are absolutely right. Those who are active major antagonists/protagonists on either side of a hot topic--like the Global Warming/Climate Change--should recuse themselves from editing the BLPs of others who are also active major antagonists/protagonists on the same issue. If they want to argue the science or the policy surrounding the issue, they need to do it in the pages of those topics....not in BLPs. KipHansen (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A good idea in principle, but unworkable in practice. All it takes is for one partisan editor to start, whether because they're new and don't know, or are convinced that spreading The Truth^TM is important above all else, and the whole thing breaks down. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Then all is well - Gray is only a bit-player in this, not a major protagonist. Oh dear... who gets to define major/minor? Anyway, this comment is mostly to point out that wiki COI is a bit unbalanced at the moment: those closely associated with the subject (and thus, in general, those in favour) are generally blocked under COI; those opposed aren't. Ideally it would be addressed, but may never be as too difficult William M. Connolley (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley - You might consider your position in this regard. I have checked your BLP, and there is no evidence that Dr. Gray has been editing it.

I'm sure that the aged skeptic's silly ideas could not possibly represent a threat to your position--so I find it curious that you spend so much of your time and effort (witness your many entries on this page) fooling around with this bit-player's BLP. Perhaps you should recuse yourself, if even only on the basis that bit-players don't deserve your lofty attentions. KipHansen (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's out of line; WMC has every much right to edit the article as you or anyone else. You're skirting dangerously close to WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

---shift indent to left ----

Raymond - thank you for your comments. You will have to forgive my flip reply to Mr. Connolley's flip reply.

You are absolutely correct - Mr. Connolley has the right to edit this page under WP "anyone can edit". With that right comes responsibilities to forward the purposes of Wikipedia and abide by its policies and rules. One of these policies, which is the topic of this Talk Page thread, is WP:COI. That is the policy dealing with Conflicts Of Interest. Another is WP:OR, which forbids editors from putting in materials from their own original research.

In this case, Mr. Connolley, who is a vigorous proponent of one side of the Global Warming controversy is editing the BLP of a scientist who is on the opposite side of the same controversy. The question, properly raised by Mr. Connolley himself is: does this represent a COI?

Mr. Connolley - In threads above, you insist that the blog RealClimate be accepted by others a WP:RS, despite the fact that such polarized blogs are expressly disallowed and despite the fact that many of the articles published (self-published?) there are not attributed to any author (eg: are anonymous). In a previous thread you characterize the "author" of such RC articles (those not signed or attributed) as "Group RC posts are the work of all." In your discussion, you fail to disclose that you are a contributing editor to RC - according to your BLP page [1] - and are thus could be assigning RS status to your own Original Research and defending links to it. I hate to say it so bluntly, but this looks like a COI to me, even setting aside the OR issue.

Let me remind all reading this thread that WP:RS is VERY explicit on the issue of the use of "partisan blogs"

"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject."

Note that here "the subject" would refer to Dr. Bill Gray.

In this case we have a clearly partisan website and partisan blog, being labeled WP:RS by one of its own editors. [see WP:OR]

I am well aware that you are a professional in the field of ice study and computer modeling, and where you wish to give Wikipedia the benefit of your knowledge and experience, in those fields, and on pages related to those fields, I applaud you for your willingness to help.

In my opinion, you, as a contributing editor to RC, certainly have a COI in regards to the issue of whether or not linking to its contents is allowed here. You may have a COI in general concerning the BLP pages of your ideological opponents - if you are unable to maintain an unbiased and objective viewpoint (NPOV). For example, if your reason for editing this BLP page is simply to attempt to discredit Dr. Gray's theories about Global Warming--as opposed to creating a well-rounded biography of Dr. Gray. KipHansen (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you please stop using this talk page for your personal attacks on another editor and as a soapbox? If you have any gripes that are real as opposed to felt - then take it up on the appropriate forums - not here.

If you have reliable sources to provide some insight into what Gray's "theories" are on global warming - then add them.

If you have trouble with realclimate under the terms of WP:RS,WP:SPS or WP:BLP - then take it up on the appropriate forums for this. Or alternatively present a case here - but drop the attacks and accusations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Kim - Thank you for joining this conversation between Mr. Connolley and myself.

I've made my point with Mr. Connolley and expressed myself clearly on the issue of using partisan websites or blogs as WP:RS and again raised the point (originally raised above by GoRight) as to whether or not anonymous posts and articles, anywhere, can be considered RS. I await his reply.

Eventually, other more experienced admins will take this up and settle it, as they have in the past, on this and other pages. In the end, WikiPolicy will win out.

KipHansen (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

undue weight

May be a fair comment. I only know about Gray for his GW position, and thats all he is known for in, say, Europe. But indeed his carerr has been on hurricane forecasting. A partial solution would be to expand that rather thin section. Cutting out some of the GW is possible, too, if done in a balanced way William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we agreed on here. It's been half a year, and no progress: The story of Wikipedia. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Then we are not so much talking about a content dispute/NPOV - but a "lack of editors" or a lazy editors problem? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the article still remains unbalanced. Whatever the cause is irrelevant. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've cut it down a bit. Someone else can have a go too if they like William M. Connolley (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I had. And its not even like I deleted anything truly of substance, is it? --GoRight (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Betting

What is the purpose of this betting section other than to try to include what you perceive to be unsavory material in this man's bio? The article is already unduely skewed to GW topics as Mr. Connolley admits above. Is the fact that the man made a common turn of phrase in a statement which was, in substance, wholly unrelated to the substance of the article referenced really warrant its own section? How is this possibly not WP:UNDUE? --GoRight (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't appreciate all of the insinuations against WMC "gang," and I suggest you stop, but you have a point here. I haven't looked at this article in a while, and it does look like UNDUE at a glance. Perhaps we should replace it with a single sentence in the previous section. A lot of gory detail here for the proposition that he's supposedly willing to bet on it. Cool Hand Luke 23:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the support on this specific topic. As for there being a WMC "gang" I am not singling anyone out (with the exception of WMC, of course) but you know as well as I do that there is a smallish group of individuals who use their numbers in a coordinated fashion to control the content on GW related pages ... usually following WMC's lead. That sounds a lot like a gang to me. Do you honestly deny that this is so? --GoRight (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've actually tried to stay away from this area. I only watchlisted a mess of GW pages after Raul's attempt to full-protect all of them. I removed protection (a move seemingly supported by a broad consensus, including Connolley), and am now watching them for manipulation by the banned User:Scibaby.

From my limited experience, William M. Connolley is a very reasonable editor. Moreover, I think it's insulting and unproductive to lump everyone you disagree with together. Comment on the content, not the contributer, especially in edit summaries. Cool Hand Luke 02:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well. Isn't this interesting: [2] and [3]? Seems the contributors at RealClimate (specifically Stefan Rahmstorf, Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, William Connolley, David Archer, and Caspar Ammann) are likewise into betting. That would include WMC from the list of names on the article, as well as the blog itself. Let's save that little fact away for future reference.

"We think not – and we are prepared to bet serious money on this."

--GoRight (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Section removed

OK, I cut the section. It fails BLP. The sources are not third-party coverage, and both come from one party who wishes to comment on a living person. He can, but Wikipedia is not an extension of his blog.

Placing this print ad also has one other potential benefit - denialist editors on wikipedia are censoring biographical articles about Gray and others that mention their refusal to bet, because the documentation of the bets are on blogs, which Wikipedia frowns on. [4]

For the information of "Brian," the relevant guideline is WP:RS. Although Blogs are often held up for scorn, an ad is no more a reliable source than a blog is. Since this is a living person, sources must adhere to the highest standards. As such, we should have reliable third party reporting of Gray's alleged refusal to take bets. This overt attempt to manipulate around an (incorrect) understanding of our rules is not well taken. Cool Hand Luke 02:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I think you're mistaken on several issues regarding betting and Bill Gray. You said the sources aren't third-party, but they are. As to whether Gray made the bet offer, you can listen to him yourself at the link. As to whether an ad was placed accepting the offer, it's there in the newspaper. The ad is a RS as to whether an ad was placed in a newspaper accepting Gray's offer, and that is all the ad is used for in the section. You referred to Gray "refusing" to take bets and the section didn't say that - only that he offered and someone (me) accepted. And yes, if I had merely publicly accepted Gray's bet offer on my blog it would have been edited from the article, so while I think my blog would have been just a RS for showing someone had publicly accepted Gray's publicly-made offer, the inflexible rules of wikipedia as they are applied required a different approach that I was willing to take for other reasons.

And while I'm not allowed to document this by WP standards, I've been in email communication with Gray - he's serious about betting and I think we're close to an agreement. In other words, nothing about this section is controversial. So, I wish you would reconsider, since your saying that I am attempting to manipulate the system is not well-received on my end, either.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not an independent third-party source. It's your blog post talking about the ad you placed. Both the blog and the ad are self-published. See WP:SPS. Perhaps you mean that the ad is evidence of the ad itself (otherwise called a "primary source"), but those should be used with extreme care in a BLP, and normally only when a secondary source references primary records. This, in contrast, is blog heckling that apparently no one has bothered to report.

If you paid to have your whole blog published as advertising, it would not magically turn into a reliable source, let alone one that's weighty enough to take a significant portion of an article—that's a gross misunderstanding of our policies and one that would actually authorize corporate astroturfing. If an actual independent reliable source covered this story, it might qualify as a WP:BLP-worthy source, but it's not as written.

Thanks for commenting though. I had no idea that the section was also WP:COI. [5] Cool Hand Luke 06:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"My" blog post is only used as an identification of who I am and isn't used in the section to verify Gray's offer or response. I don't see much of a COI there, but I also won't object to eliminating that single sentence and that blog cite. Regarding the ad, WP:SPS contains guidelines on when you can use SPS as a source about itself, which the ad seems to meet. Finally, I have no objection to a complete rewrite that simply uses the Nature magazine website referenced by Kim, below. The sciam link is good too - Gray starts talking about betting at minute 10:30. Somebody else write this thing if you want, but I think it would be very misleading to write about how Gray has repeatedly say he wants to bet and then omit the fact that somebody's trying to take him up on it.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, with an actual secondary source, this could work. As it was written, without your blog citation, plucking his bet offer out of a sermon to the choir would fail WP:WEIGHT. With living people, we can't decide what to quote from them. Secondary sources make this determination, not us, and certainly not COI editors like yourself. (Incidentally, I find it hard to believe that you don't recognize the conflict of interest of inserting links to your own blog about bets you've tried to make with living people you strongly disagree with. Don't do it again. Consider this a warning.) Cool Hand Luke 22:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The horrible sentence in question is "The ad had been placed by a critic of Gray." Still I agree, the sentence is not worth the misinterpretation risk, deliberate or unintentional. As for your warning, I'll do what's right, and I guess you'll do the same. It's worth noting that the Nature secondary source didn't exist when I put up the subsection. Also worth noting that the business and media link is also a secondary source with a primary source embedded.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Mentioning the ad itself is citing an undigested primary and self-published source. We are not allowed to use those in a BLP. I'm optimistic that we can properly source this, but you should not insert coverage about yourself into articles period, let alone BLPs. If I see you do it again, I'll make sure it's reported on COI/N so that uninvolved admins can have a look at it. Cool Hand Luke 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your last sentence is a significant improvement. Thank you.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you misunderstand SPS as well. This is not an article about your ad. This is an article about William Gray. A self-published source about a living person is out of the question unless the person himself wrote it, or it's been cited by a secondary source. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this, and a reference to the Rocky Mountain Chronicle (as mentioned here. There are (iirc) several other third-party sources to the climate bets. (we have sciam reporting that Gray has offered to bet as well as the businessandmedia link [6]). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Partisan blogs aren't BLP-worthy either, but the story looks good. Cool Hand Luke 22:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, i have a difficulty considering nature's blog to be a "partisan" one - but (yep) it is a blog (albeit one that could pass the SPS restrictions).

I fail to see the problem here though. Since its neither attack nor praise of Gray. In fact (imho) its testament to Gray's convictions that he is willing to bet on them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No. In the words of Connolley, it's a refusal to actually back his words. Where I'm from, that's negative commentary. The nature blog would work, except it's pretty trivial coverage for a BLP; could make a supplement to a more substantive source. The weekly's story does not seem to be cached anywhere. The paper is apparently currently in distress and no longer publishes. Does anyone have a copy of the article? Cool Hand Luke 12:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Note also, that a failure to come to terms is hardly a refusal to back one's words. Typical hyperbole. --GoRight (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I still don't see why this is even interesting much less pertinent to this BLP. Why do you all care so much about getting this into the article? Seriously, the appeal completely escapes me.

Even if you do have an interesting reason for including it, besides the points raised by Cool Hand I would also raise the issue of the fact that the BLP is already significantly WP:UNDUE in the area of global warming relative to Gray's body of published work. Including this merely exacerbates the problem. --GoRight (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That you are willing to bet on your convictions, even though your ideas are in the scientific fringes, shows that the person is serious, and not just a contrarian (which Gray very easily could be seen as). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I agree that this might be a reasonable point, or at least you could make a valid case for it. So do you believe that Brian wishes to have this in the article for the purpose of praising Gray? I;m not sure that I get that sense here.

On a separate point, you mention above that this factoid neither attacks nor praises (or perhaps does both simultaneously?). Doesn't that sort of make it trivia and therefore not really noteworthy? --GoRight (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CHL's current version, which removes all mention of bets and only gives a brief statement about Gray's belief that cooling will commence. It's abundantly clear that Gray is skeptical of GW - we don't need a bunch of back and forth bravado between him and his ideological opponents to further demonstrate that. It's unencyclopedic and adds nothing but heat. ATren (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected on which version Atren supports. I apologize for the misunderstanding. --GoRight (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Real Climate in external links

I like Real Climate; I think it's generally regarded as a reliable source in global warming. That said, it's not a valid reference in a BLP, and it has been appropriately removed from references in my opinion. Biographical claims should not be supported by third-party blogs, period. It fails as a BLP source.

However, I think there's some daylight between BLP sources and appropriate external links, and I'm on the fence with this link. I think this RC post might fit in that gap. Unlike some of the sources that have been removed, it's actually focused on his ideas, with a minimum of personal accusations. For that reason, I think it might be an appropriate link, analogous (perhaps) to a union voter guide or some such. We could just identify the source and indicate that it's a critique of Gray's positions on Global Warming.

On the other hand, WP:EL links normally to be avoided #11 suggests that authoritative blogs are to be used very narrowly. It might be sensible to totally forbid such blogs in BLPs. Besides: would a union voter guide even be a valid external link? Thoughts? Cool Hand Luke 19:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two things that concern me here: (1) the article being linked has no author listed, meaning that anyone on RealClimate at the time might have written it, and (2) IIRC, William Connolley was one of the people active on RC at the time it was written. Lack of a stated author is a big concern for me in any case, but compounded with the fact that WMC participated there and that WMC is a well-known critic of Gray, I think it is highly inappropriate.

WMC is a well-known critic of Gray. Am I? I didn't know. What do you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Recall that recently all references to Lawrence Solomon's criticism of WMC were removed from WMC's BLP article with great fanfare, and WMC himself attempted to ban the editor responsible for adding that criticism. And that piece was sourced to CBS News, not a blog. Here we have an editor warring to keep a link to an unattributed criticism posted on a blog - a blog where the WP editor was an active participant - in a WP:BLP of a known ideological opponent of that WP editor... this is not at all controversial. We have to avoid double standards, especially when it comes to BLPs. ATren (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Since I don't watch my article, I don't know. I have certainly not banned, or attempted to ban, anyone for editing my article. Wot are you on, old fruit? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume you forgot that you signed the GoRight RFC, which attempted to topic ban him for adding Solomon's CBS-sourced opinion to your article. ATren (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And you seem to have forgotten that the RFC was about rather a large number of articles. I don't watch my article; I don't attempt to ban people for editing it; and except in very rare circumstances I leave it entirely alone. Now can you stop throwing out red herrings and we can discuss the issue at hand William M. Connolley (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The primary issue raised was the Solomon article in your BLP. How soon we forget. But whatever, we all know there are double standards here and that will not change soon, so I'll drop it. ATren (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if the Connolley article is an example of Wikipedia's best practices. I also want to put the potential COI issue aside. (I've read the COI guideline be described as a behavioral suggestion, not a policy to be enforced against others—that users are judged only by our actual content policies—I agree with this interpretation.) It might not be prudent for one to insert links to an organization they're affiliated with, but I want to stay focused on whether this link should be included.

Do our policies allow expert third-party blogs to be an external link in a BLP? I think they could go either way, honestly. Even if they are allowable, it would probably be a case-by-case determination. Maybe we should ask for input at BLP/N? Cool Hand Luke 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That blog entry is highly critical of Gray, it is an unpublished and unreviewed blog, and there isn't even an author attribution, which I view as a very serious problem. The article is mostly scientific, but it is also highly critical of Gray himself, e.g. claiming that he failed "to adapt to a modern era of meteorology, which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying." That's a pretty serious criticism to level at a scientist. Now, RC may be dead-on in this analysis, and if this appeared in the Washington Post it would be clearly applicable, but this is still a blog, and there's no author attribution, and the content is highly critical of the man himself. These kinds of cases are why BLP was created in the first place, IMO.

But I would welcome external input to clarify this. I'm certainly not going to revert anymore, since WMC now seems to be reverting out of spite ("I wasn't going to rever, but since ATrens reasons are so obviously wrong, I shall"). ATren (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You give invalid reasons for your revert, you can expect them not to be respected. RC is (despite what some people might want) accepted as an RS on wiki. Its no good saying "its a blog" and trying to lump it in with blogs by one man and his stoat. External input is fine by me too William M. Connolley (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Who wrote that piece? Let's start there. ATren (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Its by the group called RealClimate, just like it says. Not sure how that helped William M. Connolley (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

How conveniently obscure. Let me be more specific: did you have a hand in writing it? And if not, do you know who did? I'm asking for the specific human author, not the group. ATren (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's my proposed posting on BLP/N. I would like to get a fair sample of opinions. Like I said, I think it could go either way, and would like to know what the general consensus is among BLP-watchers.

William M. Gray (external links this time) We would like to know whether it's acceptable to have criticism from a blog (Real Climate) in the external links section of a BLP. WP:EL says that blogs should be linked sparingly, and only for blogs that are established experts (Links normally to be avoided #11). Real Climate is acknowledged as an expert publication in the field of global warming. Except for the pun in the title "Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming," the article is mostly free from personal attacks, and focuses on criticizing Gray's theories. However, it also comments on Gray himself, asserting that he has failed "to adapt to a modern era of meteorology, which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying." Additionally, the Real Climate post has no byline, and cannot be attributed to any individual author.
Is Real Climate—or any third-party blog—an appropriate external link in BLPs? Should this post be linked from William Gray?

Is this a fair summary of the question? Cool Hand Luke 22:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to break things down as they've been discussed here. But just a small note: Its no secret, that Gray is a hands-on-guy, the "seat of the pants" comment, refers to how he describes himself. And several other sources describe it the same way as RC does, for instance reference 1 and 3 in the article - where you can (almost verbatim) find the same comment. I'd be rather surprised if Gray would actually object to that description - since it mostly fits with his own comments in interviews that i've read. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

KDP: The veracity of the statement is irrelevant. The question is, do we link to a critical blog entry that does not even list an author?

CHL: Looks good to me. I say post it and get some external opinion. ATren (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that Gray would object to the first part of the sentence. He might admit to being a seat-of-the-pants kinda guy, but failing to adapt to modern meteorology is certainly a negative remark. Anyway, I'll post this to BLP/N and hope for some comments. Cool Hand Luke 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much think that thats what he believes. He firmly thinks that the whole numerical modelling and turning the atmosphere into equations type of meteorology is bunk. (From the Tempest):

Gray believes in the obs. The observations. Direct measurements. Numerical models can't be trusted. Equation pushers with fancy computers aren't the equals of scientists who fly into hurricanes.

All that has an equivalent quote in Storm World chapter 4. And i'm pretty certain i've read the same in some of his testimonies. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I agree that he's suspicious of computer modeling. But he wouldn't say that he's failed to adapt to modern meteorology. He would say modern meteorology is bunk (like you say).

Anyhow, a few comments on BLP/N suggest that the unsigned nature of the blog post make it inappropriate in a BLP. It would be a good link otherwise. That sounds right to me: I think it's very close to the edge, and no byline tips the scale. Cool Hand Luke 18:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

But of course it does have a byline... That byline is "group" - not "anonymous". There is a difference. As i've commented on BLP/N. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Errm yes, indeed, which makes the BLP/N post misleading William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I asked for comments before even making the post; I tried to be fair about it, and I didn't say that it was "anonymous," just no byline. If you think it's misleading because it says "group," explain so on the BLP/N. I didn't intend to be misleading. Cool Hand Luke 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You did indeed ask for comments, but I don't think you left it very long. As it happens, I didn't see them before you posted. I don't think you were trying to be unfair (as I've said at BLP); you just made a mistake: it does have a byline, "group". Its clear from the BLP thread that a lot of people made their comments based on your assertion that it had no byline William M. Connolley (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, keep the heat on CHL for not waiting long enough on his courtesy message - which he didn't even have to leave here - even as you edit war to keep links to your own unpublished criticism to the BLP of a political opponent. This is what happens when one editor is allow to break the rules with impunity, and the encyclopedia suffers because of it. ATren (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, which group? All the group? Some of the group? The group that happened to be members at the time of the posting (which could be different than the group today, I would assume)? "Group" says very little, and it makes me wonder why they didn't just list the authors explicitly. (And CHL, you gave plenty of notice; just ignore WMC's baiting) ATren (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes - the entire group, which is what WMC said on BLP/N - And it would of course be at the time of the posting. And frankly why would they list every author - the group has been extremely stable over time, not to mention that its plain visible in the right side who the group is - use the way-back-machine if you want the exact snapshot [7]: Schmidt, Mann, Steig, Connolley, Bradley, Rahmstorf, Benestad, Ammann, de Garidel, Archer, Pierrehumbert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's really not obvious. Unsigned editorials in newspapers officially represent the entire editorial board (which the "group" designation actually doesn't specify), but Will Beback is right when he says "the 'group' byline appears more of a way of avoiding responsibility rather than sharing it." Cool Hand Luke 01:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The "avoiding responsibility part" seems to be more a POV (assumption of bad faith) than anything else. We have a member of the group, who certifies what the group byline means - why are we speculating on motive? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You're conflating issues here. This is not an assumption of bad faith; it's adhering to what the source actually says. William M. Connolley's extemporaneous comments here are not a source; the publication (RealClimate) is the source.

This is just a frank evaluation of what the source says; RealClimate says nothing about who worked on the article or how it was written, but we know that unsigned "group" pieces are often not equivalent to joint authorship. For another analogy, consider per curium legal opinions. "Per curium" means that all of the judges or justices agreed, but it's a very different thing from all of them signing the opinion. Typically, they're less controversial cases, so one judge's clerk writes the opinion, then they're circulated for comment. But the other judges typically don't scrutinize it as closely as if their name was on the line; there are many examples of judges railing against dicta that they theoretically endorsed just a couple of years earlier—sometimes even within the same case. Unanimous opinions (where every judge signs) are different, and they reflect a higher level of collaboration, as in Brown v. Board of Education.

The bottom line is that the source itself doesn't say who wrote it. The commentators on BLP/N seem to think this is an important distinction. Cool Hand Luke 15:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"but we know that unsigned "group" pieces are often not equivalent to joint authorship" <- How do we know that? And while your comment on judges is interesting - it doesn't really address the point, where the authors are known, and at least one of the authors have assured us, that the byline "group"==group effort.

Why are we taking the strange interpretation, that "group" does not (despite assurance) mean group effort? Why would we assume that "group" means some anonymous grouping within the group? What exactly would the motive be for this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This all seems a little much. "Group" means "group" and the group is jointly responsible. If the contrary standard is to insist on a signed declaration that every word was reviewed by every joint author, you have to throw out every jointly-authored piece. And by the way, per curiam judicial opinions connote joint responsibility. Bush v. Gore was per curiam, and the five judges who formed the court are jointly responsible for its persuasiveness, even if only one of them had the main responsibility. This idea of refusing to take joint responsibility for authorship at face value is opening a huge can of worms.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Bush v. Gore is a fabulous example. Commentators have remarked that it was per curium precisely so that the individual author(s) could not be discerned. As Will Beback remarked (and in many cases this is true) "the 'group' byline appears more of a way of avoiding responsibility rather than sharing it."

At any rate, "group" remains undefined. I gave two examples of where "group" opinions are not joint authorship, and you have no statement anywhere indicating that the piece is. Brian A Schmidt: Your slippery slope doesn't get much millage considering that most pieces have identifiable authors, and the commentators on BLP/N seem to think this is an appropriate standard for otherwise reliable group blogs as external links on BLPs. That's quite narrow. After a quick look, this seems to be the only BLP I can find with such a link. Cool Hand Luke 05:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bush v. Gore was signed per curiam to add weight rather than obscure main authorship. It was quickly known that O'Connor was the main author. If Kennedy were to now claim that he's not responsible for Bush v. Gore and didn't read it carefully, his reputation would be ruined. Per curiam and group authorship denote joint responsiblity. The problem with your argument isn't a slippery slope, it's that extended to its obvious conclusion it would nearly eliminate jointly-authored sources.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"group" retains the obvious definition. Its clear why ATren won't see this; its not at all clear why you can't. As ha been pointed out to you, your examples don't work: per curiam *are* the responsibility of all the judges William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Vague personal attack ignored. ATren (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A statement that disproves itself. Have another go William M. Connolley (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, group is undefined. I'm sorry; maybe it's a cultural difference, but it doesn't look like a byline to me, and the site doesn't define it—not even like op-eds do. ("Unsigned editorials represent...the editorial board.")

As for per curiams, perhaps this is also different in Britain, but they are typically the least vetted legal opinions in the United States and are usually given zero formal precedential value (i.e. "unpublished") by the court issuing them. Some courts very regularly issue per curiums for the sole purpose of obscuring issues and authors, and Bush v. Gore is indeed an example. (See for example, Laura Krugman Ray, who wrote an interesting history of per curiams in the Supreme Court: "The per curiam also spares any Justice from signing an opinion that may, because of severe time constraints, be less coherent, less elegant, or less responsive to the dissents than its author might wish.") From personal experience, I can say some judges would never describe any per curiam as their work. To me—again, perhaps this is a Yankee idiosyncrasy—direct attribution to individuals seems to embody a level of care and deliberateness that unsigned group works do not.

As for the slippery slope: again, Will Beback says that for him this only tips the scales in the case of group blogs in BLPs. Group articles are safe. If this were a non-self-published source, we wouldn't be here (or at least I wouldn't be). Cool Hand Luke 01:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WMC adding RC climate back into the text

While the discussion continues on RC as an EL, WMC has added his own criticism to the body of the article itself. I thought this was settled many months ago, so I've reverted it. ATren (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

WMC reverted back, I've reported it here. ATren (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall it being settled. You could provide a link, if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it because the suitability of RC as a source for a BLP is being discussed at BLP/N. As far as I can tell WP:BLP is clear on the matter, but as Kim has described there may be exceptional circumstances. Prudence with a BLP requires that we remove questionable text while being discussed. Mishlai (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair and correct. And i suggest that the BLP/N page is the correct venue for further discussion. (where i've just commented) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the "controversial" bit.

Two sentences:

His views on global warming are controversial, as he does not attribute global warming to anthropogenic causes, and is harshly critical of those who do.

He does not attribute global warming to anthropogenic causes, and is critical of those who do.

There's been a slow-motion edit war on the choice between these or similar forms of words for a few days now, so I asked an admin to protect the article while we worked out which form we're going to use.

The biographies of living persons policy requires that we impeccably source potentially damaging material about a living person. So what sources do we cite for this? Well the following sentence shows Gray referring to the hacked Climatic Research Unit documents as "but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well-organized international climate-warming conspiracy." Well that's a very controversial view. The source for this is a Washington Times article that quotes Gray. I'd prefer to see that sourced more reliably--it is possible that they got the quote wrong or quoted Professor Gray out of context.

The statement in question is also sourced firstly from a science article in The San Francisco Examiner in which climatologist Kevin Trenberth (who is also based in Colorado) presents a view of Gray as a maverick, a "seat-of-the-pants meteorologist", and highlights what he sees as Gray's "mind block against global warming." The second source is a Fox News story apparently based on an article in the Houston Chronicle in which Gray supposedly forecasts that he may lose funding due to his views. This was, the Fox News source says, after his university stopped promoting his annual hurricane forecasts. The Fox News also refers to Gray's views that global warming is (Fox News' words) " a hoax contrived by scientists hungry for research funding, media professionals thirsting for Pulitzer Prizes and foreign powers seeking to create a single world government." Fox News cites a Washington Post article.

I think the sourcing here could be better. The Fox News source, for instance, is at one remove from the original Houston Chronicle article, and the San Francisco Examiner piece only cites the view of one climatologist, albeit one who works in the same geographic area and can be expected to know him professionally.

And the focus is a little off. It's not that Gray's scientific views are unorthodox (and sure, he's in the minority on the science of global warming), it's his view of global warming as a conspiracy that reliable sources seem to find extraordinary. The Washington Post piece referred to by Fox News (it's here) paints a fairly unequivocal picture here.

So I think we can reword this better by saying that it isn't Gray's views on the science of global warming that makes him controversial--his view of global warming as a hoax, and a conspiracy, is what makes him controversial. --TS 00:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, we can't make the judgement that he or his views are "controversial". We need a source which says that explicitly, otherwise it's OR. That's why I've reverted it until now, and why I continue to oppose it. I would, however, be open to alternative wording that more directly ties to what's said in the source. I also question its presence in the lede; even if it is sourced reliably enough for inclusion, I don't think it carries enough weight to be in the lede, and perhaps it should be moved to the body. ATren (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, upon re-reading the sources, they do call him controversial, I apparently missed that before. But given the sourcing, I still think having controversy in the lede is too weighty; a short statement in the lede calling him a skeptic would be better, followed by an explanation of the controversy of his views in the body where his GW views are discussed. ATren (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well these views are very unusual. A working scientist who pushes a conspiracy theory about his colleagues is enough of a rarity that this topic comes up in at least two of the references above (SF Examiner and Washington Post). I would like to see this expanded in the main article before it appears in the lead, however. Whether we put in the lead at all would depend, I think, on editorial judgement as to the main focus of the biography. In my opinion, even if Gray didn't have these conspiracy-minded views, his work in hurricane prediction would probably make him famous. I think the main thrust of the article should probably be about the latter. If the conspiracy stuff turns up all the time in reliable sources then we might put it in the lead, but this being a living person's biography we should always err on the safe side. --TS 01:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've recently said elsewhere, all scientists are supposed to be skeptics. A scientist that is anything other than a skeptic, is no scientist at all. We would all do well were more of the scientists in the spotlight rightly called skeptics. Adam Thompson 75.137.146.31 (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also I would like to add, just because the CRU/UN/IPCC are pro-anthropogenic global warming, does not mean Gray and others are in the minority. Can anyone provide the numbers on this? How many climate-related scientists are pro-AGW, and how many are anti-AGW? The CRU data, which is what a large chunk of the supposed majority are leaning on, was not peer-reviewed, their data and models were kept private. The burden of proof are on the scientists making the claim, and that burden includes peer-reviewed journals and peer-reproducible results. Does anyone here deny that the CRU kept data from the scientific community, and that one e-mailer even writes he'd rather delete data than hand it over to a FOIA request? -Adam Thompson 75.137.146.31 (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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) 02:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Recentism and undue weight

We've got a serious problem when the best example one can come up with to describe a person's stance on global warming is a quote about a very recent event. I removed a reference to the CRU hack a couple of days ago, on the grounds that it was a reference to a very recent event and gave undue weight to that event. We already have a reference for Gray's views on global warming,so the purpose of adding yet another one is unclear. As this concern has not been addressed I have supported Chris Owen's edit removing the new item. --TS 04:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You have previously removed that same material. You were reverted so you are aware that other editors disagree with your position. Repeatedly edit warring over the same material is considered tendentious. As this article is purported to be under probationary sanctions, so I would recommend that you self-revert that change or someone might raise this issue at [8]. This is only meant to be a friendly heads up.

As for your assertions regarding the content involved, I disagree. --GoRight (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of including this material? You haven't explained it yet. Tony has provided some reasons why it shouldn't be there (with which I agree); what is your counter-argument? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be obvious. It provides his views in an important and notable event, not on global warming as TS claims above. It also serves as an example of the manner in which he "is critical of those who do [support the AGW view]." This is completely separate and distinct from his views on global warming. In fact, the quote provided doesn't express a view on global warming at all. --GoRight (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Gray is not involved in the CRU incident, by any measurable degree, and while he apparently holds an opinion on the subject, the subject is not notable within the context of a biography of Gray. The same goes for other scientists that have stated an opinion on this subject... If it is notable then it merits inclusion in the article on the CRU incident. We do not write biographies to note peoples opinions on current events. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To expand a bit: Grays comments on events may be notable in other articles as reaction. But unless the events have an impact on Gray himself, by influencing his stands, his views of the world, ... - then it is not biographical material. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

To forestall further WP:edit warring, any editor who adds or removes contested material from this article without first attaining consensus here may be blocked from editing. To be clear: any edit which another editor has reverted in whole or in part is contested. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William M. Gray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928141918/http://www.biotrends.org/profiles/profiles_WGray_JunJul06.htm to http://www.biotrends.org/profiles/profiles_WGray_JunJul06.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)