Talk:Chris de Freitas

NPOV

The section on the Baliunas & Soon paper is (to my eyes) very much written in a POV style. All the references are from one side of the controversy - and no attempt is being made to balance the views. (see for instance Hans von Storch for another viewpoint - and references to such. --Kim D. Petersen 00:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable

Arguments for deleting the notability questioned tag:

1. he has a lot of publications

   No in fact the amount of publications are small compared to the average - a total of 47 according to Google scholar [1]

2. he was an IPCC reviewer

   This one is apparently invented, i can find no such info, in fact on the 60 scientists letter, where other reviewers are listed - he is not listed as such. And even if he was a reviewer - that doesn't make him notable - IPCC reviewers are not experts - but simply people who have asked to be reviewers.

3. He is critical about the IPCC

   Hmmm - if this makes for notability - then i guess we have another argument for the IPCC really representing an extremely strong consensus. But then we'd have to add all manner of strange people who want to be notable - just saying that they are critical.

Finally - in my opinion the only thing that comes close to notability for de Freitas so far, is that he was involved in the Climate Change journal controversy. Something which is interesting - but not enough (imho) for notability. --Kim D. Petersen 13:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, he's an editor of the journal Research

Secondly, selected notability guidelines from here:

1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources...An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1.

He's been quoted in several articles, including this: "Dr. Chris de Freitas, a world-renowned climatologist, geographer and environmentalist from the University of Auckland in New Zealand"[2]. If that' not calling him an expert, I don't know what is. And there are several more, just Google him.

1. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.
2. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

These two are easily true. The sheer number of publications makes him notable. Oren0 19:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No. 47 pubs (if that's in fact correct) is a good rate of productivity, but by no means large enough to be notable in itself. Raymond Arritt 03:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

He was an expert IPCC reviewer! "He was an expert reviewer of the 1995 and the 2001 Scientific Assessment Reports of UN's IPCC, and the UK Department of the Environment 1996 Report Potential Effects of Climate Change in the United Kingdom.[3] Removing "not notable" tag. ^rossnixon 04:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

RossNixon: Being a reviewer of the IPCC reports does not make you notable. Why should it? The process doesn't even require you to be a scientist.

Oren0: Lets take your arguments in sequence:

1. Editor of Climate Research

   Being an editor of a journal is not a notability item. But this one is - if you reread what i wrote in the above - part of the only thing that makes de Freitas have a claim to notability: His part in the Climate Research scandal.

2. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources...An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1.

   What persons within his area consider him to be a significant expert? What is his area?

   "Repeatedly quoted" - Google comes up with ~9000 links for him - most of these (from a random check) is because his name is on the 60 scientists letter to Harper - and note also the "may meet" sentence.

   Who is Licia Corbella - and why is her opinion on de Freitas important?

3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.

   To say that this one is true - is rather disingenious. What textbook or course is his work that basis for? Do you think that the amount of papers (47) is significant - how about his most cited paper (18 times).

4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

   This is basically the same as the above - if its significant and well known - by whom? In what field? Who is saying so? (and note this must be an academic source).

All in all - it seems that you are all arguing for de Freitas to be notable - because he is a sceptic. Thats not enough. --Kim D. Petersen 11:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I agree, being just a sceptic is not enough, and I never said it was. Both myself and Oren0 believe he is notable on multiple grounds that have already been mentioned. I note that you have been warned many times about multiple reverts on your user-talk page. Please do not tag this article again unless there is a consensus of editors that such a tag is warranted. ^rossnixon 02:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of [1] seems to be that if a person is noted in the media as an expert or quoted as such a few times in articles, that implies notability. I don't care who the author is, she reports for the Calgary Sun and called him an expert[4]. His opinion on warming has also been in articles in the Guardian[5] and The Australian[6], among others. 9,700 google hits might not seem like a lot to you, but (a) I didn't see hardly any that came from the 60 scientists and (b) it's irrelevant (WP:GHITS) Oren0 16:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - She doesn't "report" for the Calgary Sun - she writes Op-Ed's for it. Thats not journalism - but opinions. The Guardian article is a commentary - not news. The one in the Australian is another Op-Ed.

Lets make this simple - the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) includes that particular Caveat because the person might come under the guidelines for WP:Notability (ie. regular notability - not academic notability).

De Freitas has very few papers to his name - and the citations are very few - 18 cites for his most cited article is extremely few.

The reason for the tag - is not to dispute that De Freitas is notable (although i personally have doubts) - but for other editors to see - and act upon - this means including information that makes it clear that he is notable. This has not been done - so i'm reverting.

We can of course check it via WP:RfDWP:AfD instead? --Kim D. Petersen 16:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want. He is easily notable. If you really want to put it up on RfD, that's your prerogative, WP:SNOW notwithstanding. Oren0 17:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually i meant WP:AfD (these shorts are confusing). --Kim D. Petersen 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(dedent) I just calculated his H-index - it comes to a staggering 7. --Kim D. Petersen 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Publish or Perish, William Connolley (note: not a personal attack, just a random example of a scientist) has an h-index of 6. Maybe you'd like to put a notability tag on his page too? Since when is this an accepted measurement of notability? Oren0 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Connolley's h-index is 13 - i guess you haven't put in the full name "WM Connolley" (h: 13, g: 18, hc: 10, hl: 4.69) - de Freitas' are: (h: 7, g: 11, hc: 5, hl: 3.50) --Kim D. Petersen 17:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To get usefull results - input the first names as initials. (it gets really bad if you just do "Chris de Freitas - you have to use "CR de Freitas"). Btw. thanks for the hint to this usefull tool (it had a Linux version (yay!). --Kim D. Petersen 18:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting in a pissing contest about this doesn't get us anywhere. Of the 3 editors who seem to care, 2 of us think he's easily notable based on publications and quotes in media. I'm generally of the belief that in borderline cases of notability (which seems to be your opinion of this page), why not let the page stay? If you really want to create a fuss, you can go to AfD or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, but I suspect that other editors will agree that he's notable. I'm removing the tag for now. If you want to put it back, remember to be mindful of WP:3RR and perhaps try to find another editor (perhaps one from outside the global warming circle) who agrees with you. Oren0 19:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be reasonable, Chris de Freitas is notable, probably twice: academic and 'regular' notability(notorious?) Reporters refer to him as a 'leading sceptic' and he writes in major papers as a Guest Columnist because of his notability.65.12.145.148 03:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not notable as an academic; borderline notable as a skeptic. Best argument for notability is his role in the Climate Research brouhaha. Raymond Arritt 03:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

there has been a trend of wiki turning into a glorified Myspace. When you see some people who have biographies, it seems the bar for notability is extremely low (I've thought about starting a blog that would let people submit the most 'un-notable' wiki biography, there are some great ones). But it's hard to single out De Freitas (especially if someone's doing it because he's a global warming skeptic).

If someone gets around to editing, here are 2 (non-RS) sources that have many RS references, complaints from students and Pals Reviews @ CR. For what it's worth, I'd say that de Freitas will indeed be notable for the 1997-2003 history, something rare in science publishing.JohnMashey (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Notable (continued)

OrenO - i do not consider this a "pissing contest" as you say... But the article has to provide sufficient reasons for de Freitas notability - his is not my policy, but wikipedia's. If you want me to desist - then provide the reasoning. So far we've been through: 1. publication record/citations - argument fails (as per above). 2. Regarded as an expert - this is within academia, not what some random Op-Ed says. 3. same as 2 for regular notability - but within the journalistic area (again not Op-Ed's) we're now talking regular notability) - so far i haven't seen much. According to policy - notability has to be shown - otherwise the tag should change into a AfD - the tag itself doesn't dispute notability, its requests that notability is shown. Please do not revert without showing this. --Kim D. Petersen 19:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The "pissing contest" I was referring to was the h-index thing. Read the template you have on the page: "An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline." You're not asking for more info, you're saying that if notability isn't expanded, the article will be deleted. If you want more info, change it to Template:Importance, which fits what you say you're trying to do. Oren0 21:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

One might contend that de Frietas is marginally notable because of his role in the Climate Research fiasco, even though he fails on the other criteria. Raymond Arritt 02:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This guy is a junior professor who comes on TV in New Zealand from time to time offering crap as views. He is irrelevant and should be consigned to the dustbin of history. Anthropogenic Climate Change is real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnobrien98 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem abusive, unattributed, and assertion as fact something that is certainly still controversial. Fifteen yard penalty and loss of down. -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

comes on TV in New Zealand from time to time implies notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.212.140 (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced quotes and other material

Wikipedia policies on biographies of living persons require that "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." This article contains a distressing amount of such material. In accordance with policy, I'm removing it. If someone can find reliable third-party sources for such material, please restore it with proper citations. Several of the quotations and other views attributed to the subject have been found to point to dead links, which I have deleted. Raymond Arritt 16:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Large-scale undiscussed change

A very large edit was made by 222.153.36.128. I have reverted it for now because it is so overwhelmingly large, and will go to his talk page to ask him to discuss it here. --TS 03:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've restored some of the deletions by Raymond Arret. If you go back through his edits, you see he removed citations, then deleted content "per BLP" -not cool.

Thanks for coming here. Could you identify the revision you're working to? The approximate date will do. --TS 04:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I grabbed this version [7] but there may be better ones and here is his deleting cites, then the whole section [8].

Well thanks for letting me know. Have you checked that the old version you restored complies with all Wikipedia policies? --TS 04:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes

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) 15:56, 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) 16:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris de Freitas. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060523043056/http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/2006510223000.CSC_News_3.PDF to http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/2006510223000.CSC_News_3.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chris de Freitas. 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/20070316090225/http://w3g.gkss.de:80/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/cr.wsj.pdf to http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/cr.wsj.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316090302/http://w3g.gkss.de:80/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/cr.nyt.20030805.pdf to http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/cr.nyt.20030805.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316085945/http://w3g.gkss.de:80/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/Chronicle%20of%20Higher%20Education.030904.pdf to http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/Chronicle%20of%20Higher%20Education.030904.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316090249/http://w3g.gkss.de:80/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/soon+baliunas.cr.2003.pdf to http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/soon+baliunas.cr.2003.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209224829/http://www.friendsofscience.org:80/documents/deFreitas.pdf to http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/deFreitas.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)