Jump to content

Talk:Syun-Ichi Akasofu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minority report from the US Senate is unreliable?

[edit]

Is a U. S. Senate Minority Report "unreliable"? Nsaa (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Complete pile of twaddle" would be a more accurate description William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if we shall discuss politics here? Nsaa (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will suggest that if this source is not appropriate, it's best that someone make a request at WP:RS/N or at least give some refs. to prior discussions supporting the view that it's a "unreliable" source (i.e. not WP:RS) to state that he is on this list. Nsaa (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you started it. Anyway: no, its not an RS for anyone's views in a BLP-type situation. So I've removed it. It is true that he is listed in it, but then again so are several people who clearly don't belong and have asked to be removed. Anyway, that report purports to merely summarise views listed elsewhere - so anything in there should be findable from its true source William M. Connolley (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please take it to WP:RS/N ... Nsaa (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that would be your task. There is absolutely no indication of oversight - several of the scientists have tried to get off the list etc. etc. All => Non-RS. And when we are talking BLP material - then it certainly is not Ok, to leave it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nsaa has just blindly reverted, alas William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is removing sourced material "blindly"? Not me. You and Kim has not given one diff or on ref. to your claims about the source being not WP:RS. Please provide that Before you go on disturb the article like you do. Nsaa (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Putting stuff in bold face is always such a convincing logical argument William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the section was based on unreliable blog sources, some of which were no longer online. The paper gives no indication of whre it was presented or formally published, we'd need a secondary source showing notability. The "700 scientists" list is very questionable, as the CEI investigation has shown. So, removed these unreliable or questionable sources per WP:BLP requirements. . dave souza, talk 17:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard

[edit]

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) 15:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Syun-Ichi Akasofu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Syun-Ichi Akasofu. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]