This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Ian Plimer is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Talk:Ian Plimer is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
What is wrong with Climate Feedback source?
I think that page is extremely useful. What is wrong with the "highly respected source" Climate Feedback[1]? Why is it "not compliant with WP:BLPSPS"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RSP[2]: "Climate Feedback is a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." I'm also pretty sure that Peter Gulutzan, the editor who removed the content, knows perfectly well that Climate Feedback is a RS, as he has a history of trying to unsuccessfully scrub this source all across Wikipedia, and is aware that the RS noticeboard considers it reliable[3]. This is tendentious fringe editing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snooganssnoogans's statements are about whether the source meets RS and not about whether it meets BLPSPS. The quote from WP:RSP is valueless because that is an essay-class page with a dubious statement, as I have explained elsewhere. And my other objection that the cite is unnecessary has not been addressed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]