Talk:John Coleman (meteorologist)

message: *Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’   --Striver - talk 12:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: news

message: In what subject did Coleman receive his degree? I can't find anything. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This source  lists him as COM which I assume is commerce.JQ (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Communications. 91.15.125.100 (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Degree

message: *However, he has expressed hope that Gore will be sued for fraud, because he has allegedly sold carbon credits which he knew to be worthless.
*Coleman is of the opinion that a debate on Global Warming should be pursued as his expertise as a meteorologist and scientist is in conflict with the assertions that Vice President Gore makes in his oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth". Gore has turned down the challenge to debate Coleman claiming "The debate on Global Warming is over." Coleman claims that Gore's movie is based on junk-science and that "Global Warming Alarmism" is some ploy for purposes that are anything but science.
Unless there is a source for these they should be deleted.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The user inserting this passage is a vandal who has expressed a wish for a permanent ban. Maybe an admin  could oblige.JQ (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced views 

message: The article claims his views have found a 'large following' but see my hidden comment for why I fact tagged the sentence  Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the more accurate analysis might be John Coleman is joining and possibly leading a LARGE MOVEMENT. Those of us with the audacity to think with our heads, not our hearts. Batvette (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large following 

message: This claim "Coleman has no education in the field of climate change. Coleman sees himself as an expert on weather (albeit a journalism degree), not on climate or climate change.[7][8]" - links to blog posts. 
Surely random blog posts shouldn't be the basis of a such a bold claim about his education and academic suitability for making statements about climate change.
Additionally "Coleman has no education in the field of climate change" is more of an opinion that a statement. Are there any widly recognised bachelors degrees, or post grads in climate change? Sure there are plenty of researchers working on climate change, and it would be fair to say that My Coleman has not published papers on climate change.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.145.234 (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: More important than the fact that he has not published any academic works regarding any topic on the climate or weather is the fact that there is no verifiable record of him undertaking a formal education, to any extent, in climate science or any related field, or a verifiable record of him exhibiting expertise in any atmospheric science.216.96.229.110 (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what degrees he has or what he is published, why should that be used as proof against his climate change denial arguments? That is extremely biased. One can cite sources that CLAIM he is incorrect, but they can't outright state that his degree or lack of degree is proof for his claims. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased (obviously not true, but it is the goal) and so it is not supposed to frame articles in a way that disputes what he is saying directly, but at most, cite other sources who dispute him (which itself is generally biased but there's nothing one can do about that because that is what is "notable"). Stating he is a "climate change denier" is enough to show that what he believes is not necessarily held by everyone. There is no need to go further and try to disparage his reputation within the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.164.115.33 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly referenced claims 

message: I added back the line about his education and expertise. Both of which are based on his own words and have proper REFs. His education is in journalism and he himself has stated that he is a "mere TV weatherman" who has "read dozens of scientific papers", "talked with numerous scientists", and "studied" this issue. He is not an expert but the other paragraphs before seem to imply he is by his reports and followers. This is improper and NPOV based on previous editors. This line tries to makes the full section more neutral and not biased toward this field or implied expertise. --Sallynice (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it again because I see it as a violation of WP:BLP where we must default to leaving material out.Like I said in the edit summary, one reference went to a Wikipedia mirror, and one to a political blog that can in no way be considered a reliable source. The remaining references may support the basic facts from that paragraph, however putting them together in that way to reduce his credibility with regards to his views on climate change is clear original research.If there is a reliable source making that exact point, that he has no education/expertise in the field of climate change and for that reason his opinion is not useful then we can add it. But we mustn't attempt to draw this conclusion ourselves. Amalthea 14:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added another REF that is HIS paper and he admits he is not a Exp and also still adds more backup to his ED. And it is not a violation of WP:BLP as it is REF and makes the sectio Net --Sallynice (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quote to me where this new ref says that his credibility is reduced because he is not an expert on climate change. Amalthea 14:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quote to me where in the Wiki page it says he has no credibility? The line simple makes that section neutral. His claim to fame is how outspoken he is in Global warming but he admits that is not his expertise. He says he bases it on layman’s research. --Sallynice (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:BLP/N#John Coleman (news weathercaster). And FWIW, removal of poorly sourced contentious material that violates WP:BLP is exempt from WP:3RR. Amalthea 15:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Something like that could be fine. I have never been against changing or update just the removal of the entire piece. When Coleman himself tried scrubbing the whole section I made mention I wanted him to come back and help edit it. I still wish he would as Wiki has little to no info on how he was removed from “The Weather Channel” and that was the whole reason I was drawn to his page in the first place. I think the whole GW section needs work, and would love to expand on the Weather Channel part as well, but do not like to make sweeping changes without consent of others.--Sallynice (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Almathea is going on a short wikibreak and will probably be back in a few days.  I also noticed that this article has been placed on lockdown for three days (6 FEB 2012).  Perhaps it would be best to make your proposed changes here on the Talk Page in the interim, giving others a chance to comment and edit.  Then when the lockdown expires, there may be consensus to implement them. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education and Expertise  

message: I recently edited the "Views on global warming" section to improve the <ref>s. I also noticed major problems with this paragraph:
:Critics of Colman’s have questioned his lack of academic credentials, journalism degree, and charge that he has not conducted actual research in the area of climate change.
* There is only one critic: singular, not plural.
* That critics is a blogger at a deeply hostile website. Hostile blogs in a WP:BLP?
* The blog post does not mention "journalism".
* Nor does it mention "academic credentials".
* "Research"? Not there either.
* The post (dated 11-Nov-2007) is reacting to Coleman's ‘Greatest Scam in History’ essay, discussed in the first para of the section.
So I moved the mention of the ThinkProgress blog item to the first para, and changed it to
:A blogger writing for the liberal website, ThinkProgress, responded by questioning his lack of academic credentials in "climate change science".
Subsequently,  restored the previous wording in the previous place (along with 3 irrelevant refs). I've now undone that edit. I believe my version is neutral and factual, while the previous version was inaccurate and POV. In fact, I suspect using the ThinkProgress blog post is a BLP violation, even when we accurately summarize it.
Any comments? CWC 18:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting ThinkProgress blog post 

message: Last May, User:Sagredo added a paragraph to the "Views on global warming" section noting the mainstream view on the subject and explaining the difference between a TV weatherman and a climatologist. This was appropriate, and brought the page into line with core Wikipedia policy, which says that coverage of conspiracy theories like Coleman's should include a prominent description of the mainstream reception of those conspiracy theories. Recent edits by an IP editor and User:Collect have removed most or all of this material, leaving three short paragraphs uncritically reporting Coleman's views and one sentence (or nothing) pointing the reader to more mainstream views. It would be better to delete the article than leave such a flagrant violation of WP:WEIGHT in place. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Such stuff belongs in the articles on that topic and not inserted into BLPs where the material is gratuitous and of dubious relevance.  Additionally, the material about "real people have degrees in meteorology and he has one in journalism" is UNDUE - we do not know what other courses he took, nor that he is unfamiliar with science, which is the obvious implication being made.  Material in BLPs is supposed to be a dispassionate biography which is why they are called "biographies" and not "essays on how good or evil a person is."   If you wish to have this material in this BLP, then start an RfC for it and state why it is relevant to the BLP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Desmogblog is not RS for statements of academic credentials, and the rest of the material is not actually about the person who is the topic of the article.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material added by Sagredo 

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) 16:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP noticeboard

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on John Coleman (news weathercaster). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kusi.com/story/12963605/john-coleman
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified