Talk:J. Scott Armstrong

message: The notability requirement WP:Notability (people) is a guideline to determine is a person should have a web page or not.  Armstrong definitely meets the criteria for notability.  However, some have deleted a link to one of his peer reviewed papers claiming the paper is not notable because it is only cited one time.  I cannot agree with this deletion.  If the article was overly long at this point and had to be trimmed back, I might agree.  Length is not a problem and readers should have access to this paper, one of the first in the area of scientific forecasting. RonCram 23:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are too many papers there spammed in by his student. NN papers from way back with 1 cite aren't worth mentioning William M. Connolley 08:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William, the paper discusses how physical scientists fail to consider information that is contrary to their theories.  It appears you are deleting this paper only because you dislike the content or find it embarrassing.  Since your deletion appears to driven by your POV, please do not delete it again. RonCram 15:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, annotated bibliographies are acceptable.  In this case, I think it is helpful. RonCram 15:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron its an encyclopedia not a reading list, nor a CV or bibliography. We report what is notable about people/things etc. The current list is severely bloated - and should be cut down to around 5-10 of the most cited works. --Kim D. Petersen 16:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can the the Technology Review is not a peer-reviewed journal, but more of a popular technology magazine. Including this with real publications is at least misleading. --Stephan Schulz 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not delete links to Armstrong's papers 

message: For someone with JSA's claims, online refs to him that aren't directly sourced back to him are very thin on the ground: I've managed to find one only. Thus I am concerned that this article isn't well sourced.
OTOH, having looked up the papers, I'm quite happy that JSA *has* written a pile of papers many of them with quite high cite counts.
William M. Connolley 18:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: What's with all the links to papers and primary sources? This was so written by one of his students. (At least, I hope it wasn't Dr. Armstrong himself. I would think if he did it, having a PhD and everything, it would be less obvious.) Anyway, this article needs some serious clean-up. Rocket000 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: :Image:PrinciplesOfForecasting.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:PrinciplesOfForecasting.jpg

message: :Image:LongRangeForecasting.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:LongRangeForecasting.jpg

message: I am a skeptic...and a conservative.  Not at all an AGW-lover.  So when I slam this article, realize that.  I don't know much...but I do know enough to know when I don't know much.  I know Bayesian estimation at the most topical Phil Parker B-school, reading about hunting for the Scorpion type of level.  But even that (plus general experience in science) is enough to see that this guy is pushing himself (or the student is pushing his prof).  There's a lack of perspective on the general scope of estimation.  Perhaps, Armstrong is right and AGWers are being Bayesian enough (Tradesports for temp anyone), but when this guy puts himself up as the leader in betting forecasting and the like...puh-leeze.
This should just be an essay from the student...or the website of the prof itself.  I vote for article deletion or radical pruning.  If pruning, we could make it of a length similar to other academics of similar reknown (use impact factor to judge).  Somehow, I really DOUBT (would Bayesian bet) that this guy is not on the Nobel short list...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article much too long...and slightly POV 

message: Lots of the basic info is sourced to JSA's homepage. Is that acceptable? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's obviously auto-puffery from staff at his institute, if not him directly, so it seems absolutely appropriate :-) Jdannan (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The vast list of major findings added by an anon  - likely connected to JSA - is inappropriate. I've removed it, again William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major findings? 

message: The anon resolves to hnt-up-dhcp-273.wharton.upenn.edu, i.e., the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.  Given that the subject of this article is a member of the Marketing faculty in the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, I've added the  tag. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Autobiography

message: What's the rationale for this tag?  I see a lot of edits from experienced editors, and it appears any disclosure of potential COI was made a considerable period of time ago.  Fell Gleaming(talk) 07:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What NPOV tag? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correction, the autobio tag. Fell Gleaming(talk) 08:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As the tag says, the article "has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject, and may not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy." Seems plain enough. I'm curious as to why you deleted the tag, given that we know for certain that the article has been "extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a warning template, intended to be used when those edits have potentially resulted in NPOV issues.  In this case, with a couple hundred edits on the article, made by a considerable number of people besides this particular editor, it's no longer necessary.   Do you have any specific POV issues you'd like to discuss?  Fell Gleaming(talk) 17:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-published sources, inappropriate tone, and so on give abundant evidence of the article's autobiographical roots. Let's leave the tag up until the article is more encyclopedic in tone and content. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

text:  The issues have been addressed, thanks.  Fell Gleaming(talk) 02:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No they haven't. Please don't assert things unilaterally, but instead rely on consensus as required by Wikipedia policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have an issue, you need to discuss it.  Drive-by template dropping is not helpful.  Further, I brought up the issue two days ago, and no one has voiced any concerns. There is no "consensus" for this template.   There are numerous, independent sources backing up the article, and I don't see anything resembling a peacock term still in the article.  Please self-revert. Fell Gleaming(talk) 23:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the sources (such as the college guides) are very shaky. If the statements are indeed correct, it should be possible to find better quality sources such as mainstream newspapers or magazines. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The autobio tag is not appropriate in a case where one editor feels a source may be "a bit shaky".  The sources are not self-published, and the fact is clearly verifiable: Armstrong has been called one of the "xx" most famous professors currently teaching.  Please self -revert.  Fell Gleaming(talk) 00:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: William, as per your many edits removing "blogs as sources" from BLP, I'm sure you realize the Annan claim can't stay here.  See  for just one example.  How is a personal blog a better source than an editorial in a 50-year national magazine? Fell Gleaming(talk) 08:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That would depend on the blog. A comment by a scientist directly involved in the climate prediction is indeed far superior to a newspaper source by someone clueless William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  A journalist who says someone is "squelching journalists" is not someone "directly involved"  In the case I listed, the person cited had direct contact with the article's subject.  In your case here, Annan's only presence in the article seems to be to poison the well.  Fell Gleaming(talk) 09:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP Violation 

message: It seems nobody has been allowed to get a propper grip on this article which is far more of a personal CV than an encyclopedic article. Links to no less than 12 of his own papers hosted by his university and his other websites. Links to three of his own videos. Six carefully selected and very favourable news stories. And three of his external websites. This is completely over the top. This has to be dealt with as wikipedia is not an advertising forum for how great a person is. Polargeo (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates are needed as the article has several peackock terms and missing refs. It is easier to point these issues out with templates than to try and list every single one on a talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The inline templates are fine.  But slapping four message box templates into four sub-areas of one small area, looks more like well-poisoning, than an attempt to indicate a problem. Fell Gleaming(talk) 15:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I have serious issues with those sections and correctly templated them. Templates can always be removed once issues are dealt with and these issues can be dealt with very quickly. Polargeo (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

text:  Hm, trying to stay consistent on citing papers, a person like Joe Romm (who is far less scholarly notable in his field has 9 listed).  But Romm is admittedly much more politically notable, which may counerbalance some of that.   Tell you what, I'm going to take a stab at a version that addresses most of your issues, and if you don't like it, I'll self revert.  Fair enough?  Fell Gleaming(talk) 16:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nine is excessive. I will leave the article alone and let you get on with reducing the CV like quality. Polargeo (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam crazy CV 

message: Polargeo, you have misread the source.  The terms of the bet are that each side place $10,000K in trust until the bet is resolved.  Please self revert this one.  Fell Gleaming(talk) 15:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will find that is what is called a 10 000 dollar bet. But I admire the fact that you are not familiar with gambling Polargeo (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate Challenge Figure 

message: Just leaving a few redlinks for now as someone may wish to start an article on these if they are notable. If you don't like the look of them or think an article is not viable then please feel free to remove them. Polargeo (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the quote does nothing for his notability you cannot assert notability through quoting from his own publication. But I will leave it in for the present. Polargeo (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am taking a break. ref no. 5 needs tidying up after WMC's edit as tags for this ref are still in other parts of the article. Polargeo (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks 

message: Why the insertion, without discussion, of unreliable source tags on the hubdub and collegestats sites?  I see nothing on the RS NB against them.  Please explain your reasoning here.  Fell Gleaming(talk) 14:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence is there that they are reliable sources? CollegeStats isn't opening for me right now, but this is enough to conclude that hubdub isn't an RS. Guettarda (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, but you're going to have to do better than this.  WP:RS is a term that must be taken in context.  Is Hubdub a reliable source is the only source reporting that Obama was actually born in Sweden, rather than Hawaii?  No.  Is it a reliable source for stating conditions laid down by a professor on a public web site?  Yes.  Also, as per WP policy, if you don't believe these sites are reliable, you have to support your argument.  Random tagging and retagging, then walking away is not appropriate. Fell Gleaming(talk) 14:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence that Hubbub backs up is reasonable. Not a great source though. I think this is a case where sourcing to Armstrong is better because it is his bet played and assessed by his rules. Polargeo (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And on his website he seems to be clearly doing a year on year assessment of who has won. Which is nonsense as the RC comments mention. Polargeo (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had the source at Armstrong originally.  You tagged it, so I moved it to Hubdub.  Now you say Armstrong is the better source.  This is the pattern I'm referring to. Fell Gleaming(talk) 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I tag sources when they don't are insufficient to back up the claims. I never tagged hubbadub. In fact you actually added extra information to try to counter the claim from RC and cited hubbadub as an extra source (this edit), you didn't change the source to hubbadub. Polargeo (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My tagging of self-published sources earlier on was to do with the fact that a lot of important statements were being made about certain things with only self published sources and we must avoid turning a wikipedia article into another Armstrong website, therefore overreliance on self pub sources earlier on was not good. You have mostly dealt with this issue now (a couple of outstanding exceptions). Polargeo (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimization attempts 

message: Presently the list of pubs, websites, etc. is about as long as the rest of the article.  How can this be made more concise? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NOTCV]]

message: 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) 15:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP noticeboard

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on J. Scott Armstrong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130308162252/http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf to http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified