Talk:Nicola Scafetta

Please allow the article time to grow

The article is still a stub, but already some well-meaning person has already attempted a speedy delete. Scafetta is still quite young, but he has published a number of important articles in many different disciplines. Some people are talking about him as a future Nobel Prize in Physics winner. Help me make the article better! RonCram (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It was not a speedy delete, but a proposal for deletion. There's a difference. You must show these "some people" that are supposedly talking about a Nobel. We don't allow such speculative statements without proof from reliable sources. As it stands now, this person does not pass notability standards for academics. It's up to the original author (not me) to provide more and better references that show that other people find him notable. Get to work. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I provided a RS for the mention of a possible Nobel Prize. The RS is an Italian news outlet. Your proposal was an attempt for a speedy delete. It came very early after the first edit or two, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. What's the hurry to prejudge the article? Give the article 90 days to develop. I have a full time job. I cannot spend all my time writing this article. Scafetta is one of the most interesting and productive physicists around and he is very rare in that he contributes to so many different fields. He is only 39 years old and people are already talking about him winning a Nobel Prize. This is a very notable academic. RonCram (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

90 days? Let's try five. And apparently only one person has mentioned anything about a Nobel for this guy. That's not even close to a trend. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Riddled with problems

This thing is riddled with problems, forgive me if I don't find the worst. But Scafetta has made numerous contributions to science, but his most significant is is awful. Who says his most sig is...? "has made numerous contribs" sounds much like puffery William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

William, your edits come very close to vandalism. Scafetta has published in many different disciplines, making contributions in each of them. However, the reason the Italian newspaper is talking about him as a possible future Nobel Prize winner is because of the theory he proposed. Your attack on this article appears to be on purely ideological grounds. It would be far better for you to either attempt to make the article better or leave it alone until the article has a chance to develop. RonCram (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

None of that made any sense. "re-write" isn't an argument for a pile of reversions William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

On the question of notability

Realkyhick has raised the question of notability for Scafetta. The guideline of notability for academics is found at Wikipedia:PROF. As the guideline itself points out, it is “best treated with common sense and occasional exceptions may apply.” When determining if an exception applies, it is always best to put the interests of Wikipedia readers first.

Scafetta has become well-known because of his skepticism regarding global warming. His research has been promoted by Roger A. Pielke, an ISI highly-cited climate researcher. Pielke’s notice of Scafetta was picked up by Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? blog, the most popular science blog on the internet with nearly 1 million hits per month. When interested science blog readers come across Scafetta’s name, they need a place to go to find more information about the man and his research. Wikipedia should be that place. I came to Wikipedia myself to learn more about Scafetta. When I saw no article for Scafetta, I decided to start one. I was amazed to learn what I did about the man.

People may argue that Scafetta does not meet the most common tests for notability for an academic, but the common tests, like winning important awards, all favor the older academics. Scafetta earned his Ph.D less than a decade ago. Take the case of Albert Einstein. In 1905, Einstein was a wannbe professor. Even though he was a little-known employee in the patent office, he published his theory of special relativity (and two other papers) which ignited the world of physics. Einstein’s theories were later confirmed by observation. Einstein won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921. It took 16 years for his achievements to be recognized by the Nobel Committee. It is my opinion, as yours as well if you think about it, that Einstein would have deserved his own article in Wikipedia long before the Nobel Prize was awarded to him.

As it turns out, some people are already talking about a future Nobel Prize for Scafetta. An Italian news outlet has commented that the data to confirm his phenomenological theory of climate change will be available eventually and he could win the Nobel Prize in Physics around 2035. As far as I know, this mention of a future Nobel has not been repeated in any English language publication. But the fact, it happened in Italy is still noteworthy.

Also noteworthy is Scafetta’s development of Diffusion Entropy Analysis, a statistical method which has allowed him to publish in a wide variety of fields. This is quite rare among academics and shows the breadth of his contribution.RonCram (talk)

"Some people" is apparently just one person. If I write in my own newspaper column that an athlete in my paper's coverage area might someday be a candidate for the Heisman Trophy, that still doesn't make him notable. One newspaper writer's opinion does not confer notability, and this particular one can only be verified if you speak Italian. As for your comments about notability requirements favoring older academics, that's because they have been around long enough to do noteworthy things, generally speaking. Scaffetta hasn't, and his youth does not give us cause for an exception. We cannot predict the future, and we do not have a crystal ball to tell us if Scafetta will become notable for his work at a later date. But for now, he does not appear to be, according to these requirements. The Einstein analogy borders on being silly. Ron, you may not like these requirements, but they are in force here, despite your protests. We don't have to wait for Scafetta to win a Nobel, but we do have to wait until he mets the standards. As I have told you before, if you would spend less time complaining and more time finding appropriate references, you — and this article — would be much better off. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You have an erroneous view of notability, partly because the notability guidelines are just that - guidelines - and not requirements. The guidelines themselves call for exceptions. The notability guidelines were established mainly to ensure the project only has articles that people will care to read. At the foundation, an academic is notable if people want to read about him. Notability in Wikipedia says "In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has received 'attention from the world at large' or has 'enduring notability', as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." There is no question Scafetta has received attention from the world at large. Scafetta has published many scientific papers, but he has also published in important science blogs and many other science blogs have written about him. Climate Science, Roger Pielke's blog, has reported on Scafetta six times. Watts Up With That reported on Scafetta four times. According to the most recent numbers, WUWT is getting 3 million hits per month. Other blogs include Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre[1],Real Climate[2], The Blackboard by Lucia Liljegren[3], Reference Frame by Lubos Motl[4] and many others[5][6][7][8][9][10] People read about Scafetta's theory and research and want to know more about him. Wikipedia is the natural place for people to come. I stand by my statement that Einstein would have deserved his own Wikipedia article before he won the Nobel Prize in 1921. According to your view, Einstein would not have been notable prior to 1921 because he was still young, his theories were unproven and he had not won any major awards. In my view, Einstein was notable prior to 1921 because people were interested in him and his research. His theories were different from the old theories. Similarly, Scafetta is notable now because his theories are different, people are paying attention to them, science blogs are writing about him and Wikipedia readers want to know more about him. In short, the guidelines do not and should not require that an academic's theories have been confirmed by observation. Quite apart from his phenomenological theory of climate change, Scafetta is notable because of his development of Diffusion Entropy Analysis, a notable statistic technique that has allowed him to publish in a wide variety of scientific journals. This is extremely rare among academics and is a separate reason for notability. RonCram (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comparison to Einstein is invalid, and almost laughable. Your rationale seems to be 1) Einstein was notable before he won a Nobel Prize (which he was — you don't have to win a Nobel to establish notability); 2) Einstein went on to win a Nobel; 3) Scafetta has been mentioned as a possible Nobel winner, ergo, Scafetta is notable by anticipation. That's just plain silly. A person is notable because of what he or she has done up to today, not for what they may do sometime later. Einstein has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Additionally, according to this guideline, blogs are usually not considered reliable sources, no matter how many hits they get, and therefore cannot be used as the main source of independent information about a subject. The notability guidelines/requirements for academics are quite clear. It is your own view of notability which is incorrect, for the purposes of Wikipedia articles. How can you prove that Scafetta is notable because people want to read about him? How do you know for certain that people want to read about him? You don't, because there's no possible way you can aside from some sort of Gallup Poll or the like. You're grasping at straws here, and basically saying that your opinion of what constitutes notability should be followed instead of Wikipedia's. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Your inability to follow logic is entertaining. Let me recast the argument for you. In the past, you have said there is a reason the "requirement" favors older academics. Your argument seems to conclude no exceptions exist or should exist. I agree the "guideline" should favor older academics but exceptions exist and there are good reasons. I pointed out that young Albert Einstein would be a good example of an exception. Now you say young Einstein would deserve an article. Under which criterion of the guideline? You didn't say. Scafetta is similar to Einstein in that both are notable for having proposed new theories which have people talking. Neither fit well into any of the standard criteria listed in the guideline (which favor older academics) but are still clearly notable because of the interest their science has generated. Scafetta is notable for two reasons. First, the phenomenological theory of climate change and his skepticism of IPCC conclusions are being written about by scientists on science blogs, one getting three million hits a month. His science is getting attention "from the world at large." People are reading about him, talking him and want to know more about him. By the way, you should know that if an academic is notable under normal Wikipedia guidelines, he does not have to meet the guidelines for academics. Second, Scafetta is notable because he developed Diffusion Entropy Analysis which has allowed him to publish in a wide variety of scientific disciplines. This is extremely rare. I do not know of a single academic who has published in as many different disciplines as Scafetta. I am not saying Scafetta is notable by anticipation. I am saying he has already produced. When a journalist talks about him winning a future Nobel Prize in Physics, that is a pretty good indication people are recognizing his scientific contributions. The same kind of talk followed Einstein prior to his winning the Nobel in Physics. RonCram (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional reliable sources for this article

See the MSNBC report. [11] Also, see the book Scafetta authored with Bruce West - Disrupted Networks: From Physics to Climate Change [12]

MSNBC - OK, it is independent and a reliable source, but the mention is rather brief. Book - Just like his published papers, it's a primary source. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A book may be a primary source but it is still considered a reliable source regarding the views of the author, which is a common subject on bio pages. I am just trying to give other editors some material to jump in and help out writing this article.RonCram (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Needs study

This is just a note for me to look into this paper more closely. [13] RonCram (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

NS

Interesting article in NS: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18307-sceptical-climate-researcher-wont-divulge-key-program.html

Meanwhile, the rest of this article remains a disaster area, but no-one cares William M. Connolley (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?

Could the editor who added this tag please look at the current version and see if they still have concerns? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it was still a bit unbalanced, insofar as it fails to describe the reception of his ideas, or identify them as WP:FRINGE. But I will say that the issues remaining are more ones of absence; the active POV-pushing has been removed. (e.g. editorialising about how his global warming beliefs were a fantastic contribution to science) 86.** IP (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree the articl could be improved, and plan to work on it a bit as time permits.

I'd be cautious with the FRINGE business. Scafetta has made some testable predictions, and we'll see how they play out. He's an interesting scientist. No indications of tin-foil hats that I can see... ;-]

Are you OK with removing the tag? --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete entire article?

Why do we have a page like this? Should we have similar pages for all academic scientists? I am in favor of deleting the entire page. Spatial 58.156.153.194 (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well looking at SCOPUS we see that Scafetta has published 59 peer reviwed scientific articles, including some in higly respected
journals like PRL, Physical Review, Climate Dynamics, Journal of Geophysical Research etc. and has a Hirch index 16, because 
there are a number of well cited articles. I am highly sceptical about his work on climate science, it is obvious that someone 
with such scientometric indexes is not the average scientist but He is notable enough taking into account that there are  
about a lot of scientists with much lower h-index. I think that the case here is closed- Scafetta is a notable scientist.

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) 17:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Numerology?

Scafetta's climate model is based primarily on a numerological comparison of [..] Numerology? Really? I suspect that whoever wrote this has no idea about science. No wonder, in an article about a climate change denier. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Resolved now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)