Talk:Christopher Landsea

message: Please continue to critizise scientific arguments. Don´t let the politicians stop you. I have experienced myself the method of ousting out of communities or positions of influence, which represents the lack of intellect in these people, and their prejudice and other weaknesses. Knowledge is what counts. Please remember that bullies never force you to give up, but oust you to do it in order that you may avoid bad circumstances. Critisism is the essential method of truth, and conservatism is it´s worst obstacle. Teemu Ruskeepää 10:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encouragement to Mr. Christopher Landsea 

message: WP:BLP:
"Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article" 
Sourcewatch and the blog are clearly not acceptable.  The blog doesn't even relate to Landsea, but Pielke's views on the IPCC, used to cast a negative light on Landsea, which is not acceptable per WP:BLP.  Put the Pielke line in Pielke's article. --Theblog 05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are being silly. The Pielke quote is obviously appropriate, and usable, and adds useful info to the article William M. Connolley 13:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I'm not, the line includes OR, plus its in a blog, plus he hedges his bet at the end.  It doesn't belong.  --Theblog 16:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this via Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stephan Schulz and thought I'd leave a comment.  The blog thing is a red herring because, as has been pointed out, it's Pielke's blog being used to support a quote by Pielke. So the only question is whether a direct quote from Pielke is a reliable source in this context. Also the BLP rule applies to a "source about a living person" but the quote discusses the IPCC, not Landsea—so it's not clear that BLP applies. --Nethgirb 23:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its put in there as OR or SYN to cast badly on Landsea, you'll note the one point about being the original poster of Landsea's letter is not in the blog post, and I don't believe Landsea is mentioned at all, I'll have to go back and doublecheck.  --Theblog 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Landsea doesn't appear anywhere in the blog article, putting him in the line is clear WP:OR.  It is still a blog source which is being used to cast a poor light on Landsea.  --Theblog 01:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bit about Pielke posting Landsea's letter is not OR -- already cited previously (did you not notice that?) and I added the citation below now, not that it was strictly necessary. --Nethgirb 12:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, William is correct, it is not a BLP issue.  --Theblog 21:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:BLP Violations 

message: "After Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, Republican administrators preferred Landsea over other scientists in NOAA to speak to the media about the link between hurricanes and climate change."
The referenced Salon article  doesn't say that at all.  It says:
"Chuck Fuqua, was happy to have a more politically reliable NOAA hurricane researcher named Chris Landsea speak to the press" 
Instead of BLANK, who could or could not be a scientists in NOAA or elsewhere- the article speculates on a scientist, but it is not clear if it actually was.  It is also not clear that he "preferred" Landsea over anyone, just that he was happy to have Landsea on.--Theblog 06:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New source adds solid name, but its just one scientist and its not clear he was preferred, just used over that guy. --Theblog 16:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop deleting this stuff just because you don't like it William M. Connolley 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not deleting it because I do not like it, I am deleting it because it is inaccurate. --Theblog 18:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem determined to ignore 3RR under guise of BLP William M. Connolley 21:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The original statement and my above concern are WP:BLP violations, you have yet to show otherwise.  --Theblog 00:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have your own odd interpretation of BLP which no-one else shares; in particular the admin who blocked you for 3RR didn't share it. Please leadrn from this William M. Connolley 21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, thank you for your kind wisdom.  --Theblog 21:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So... if you accept they aren't BLP, what was your comment above about? William M. Connolley 21:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OR]] Problems with this line