Talk:William M. Gray/Archive 1

message: I deleted one of the sources and revised the quote to "I'll take on any scientist in the field to talk about this...." The source I deleted converted "to talk about this" into an ellipsis. In my opinion, they did it to intentionally imply that he made a bet. It's obvious from the following source (still anti-Gray, so I doubt they would have likewise "fixed" the quote) that this is the correct quote. I've deleted the original quote source and moved up the following one, since their "massaging" of his words makes them automatically dubious.--MikeJ9919 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of Source and Revision of Quote

message: *Like many hurricane forecasters, Gray rejects the theory that the recent uptick in storms is due to climate change. He points out that the U.S. had an unusually low number of storms from the 1970s o the end of the century and says the law of averages is simply catching up. But he goes further and dismisses the view — accepted as fact by most scientists — that recent warmer temperatures are caused by man-made greenhouse gases.
*"It's one of the greatest hoaxes ever," Gray says of global warming, theorizing that it's an alarmist hypothesis made to snare research dollars. Gray believes that climbing temperatures are caused by cyclical warming in the oceans, and that the globe will cool down again in the next 10 to 15 years. 
What's the best way to incorporate the 2 quotes above? --Wing Nut 20:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LA Times article

message: I removed the following note
 (note that warming is closer to 0.5 °C over the last 3 decades)
The note is incorrect he says quite clearly that he is speaking of sea surface warming, while the graph shows compiled warming from multiple sources, if you read the dataset, and find the sea surface warming chart you will see that he is quite correct in his quote. PPGMD 13:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! You're right... William M. Connolley 13:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Note 

message: re:  KimDabelsteinPetersen  (→Stance on global warming - reinsert bet - its part of who and what Gray is. The information is sourced and attributable.)
Can we get a biographer in here (and over on Richard Lindzen's page too)?  This silly "climate bet" thing has been re-entered in the biography of possibly the world's greatest hurricane expert -- and in this case (Kim - take note) the challenging bettor in not a scientist at all but a gadfly blogger who brags on his blog about aggrandizing himself by entering his little hobby results in Wikipedia and rants piteously about how he wants to be just like James Annan.  The interesting thing about the story is only that Gray had the manners and good graces to talk to Brian Schmidt at all.
:A single phone-call from a total stranger who has no standing in the field of tropical cyclones, weather, climate science or anything else discernible, in which the caller makes the nutty suggestion that a venerable scientist of Gray's standing bet him (the unknown caller) a substantial amount of money about how much the planet will or will not warm over the next XX number of years...is ridiculous on its face. It certainly  is not a matter to be reported in what is hoped to become a serious international reference work, though if repeated, such calls would quite rightly be be reported to Dr. Gray's local police department as some form of harassment.
Insisting that this single-phone-call-from-a-total-stranger is "part of who and what Gray is" is pathetic.
Can we get a real biographer in here - one without a drum to beat?
KipHansen 04:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again, The Bet 

message: 13 April - I have re-deleted Brian Schmidt's comments about the non-bet on climate change.  It clearly violates the policies on Biographies of Living Persons section as follows:
Reliable Sources
"Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception."
It is based on a Brian Schmidt's own report of a single private telephone conversation that is said to have taken place in November 2005.  The report appears in Brian Schmidt's blog.  Brian Schmidt's blog reveals that he is intentionally challenging famous climate scientists (whose views differ from his own) to "bets" to embarrass them.  No one Brain has "contacted" has been willing to make a bet with him. 
This entry further violates the policies on NPOV - BIAS - Scientific "Scientific: favoring a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason." (In this case, non-favoring ;-)
If this section is again re-inserted, I will request Page Protection for this page on the basis that editors with personal bias are attempting to hijack this biography based on their personal views about climate change.
KipHansen 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Does Gray believe what he is saying or not? If he does, he'd be happy to bet on it. Why not? Its not a cheap shot, its a proper test William M. Connolley 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once Again, The Bet 

message: To all concerned, and hopefully some Administrators from the Biography Project---
I simply insert below my discussion with Mr. Connolley from his Talk page about the above.  Personally, I think that either he has gross mis-understandings about WP of all sorts or simply choses to mis-apply them.  I leave this biography in your tender care as well as what to do about Mr. Connolley.
* * *insert starts here* * *
My apology to you
Mr Connolley - First please accept my apology for using the phrase "POV editor" in regards to yourself. I was unaware of how offensive it is considered in wiki-speak. Second, Kim D. Petersen [25] has informed me that you are a WP:RS yourself, in the field of climate science, and auburnpilot [26] has informed me that you are, in fact, a Wkkipedia Administrator. Please excuse my "ignorant newbie" errors regarding this matter. So that I don't embarrass myself again in the same way, could you please explain to me here, in this less public forum, exactly how this bit --
When contacted, like fellow skeptic Richard Lindzen, he refused to accept any bets as to whether temperatures would drop, even bets that survive the bettors' lifespan by being given to a charitable foundation. (In Gray's case, he stated that as a man in his seventies, he did not want to make bets that exceeded his expected lifespan.) [27]
From  [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray ], the biography of Bill Gray, a living person
does not violate WP:BLP section on RS, or, what exception to the policy justifies its inclusion in contradiction of this policy?
Thus fully informed, I will happily publicly apologize to you on Bill Gray's page and publicly admit to being an "Ignorant Newbie".
I include the section to which I refer here, not because I think you are unfamiliar with it, but so that there will be no mistake about exactly which policy I refer to;
Reliable sources
Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Attribution, and could lead to libel claims.
Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception.
Thank you for taking time to address this with me, KipHansen 19:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I regard the source as reliable and the material as non-defamatory William M. Connolley 08:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't understand the OR policy. OR applies to wiki-editors not external sources William M. Connolley 07:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My Discussion with Mr. Connolley

message: I deleted the text about the bet based on reasons that I have outlined above.  However, I admit that I did not look at the edit history or at this talk page first.  If I had, I would have realized that there was an ongoing revert war over this text.  It was not my intent to jump into an edit war.  I think KipHansen has a point and I would urge WMC and KDP to reconsider their positions.
--Richard 20:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An apology... 

message: Substituted at 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment