Talk:I'm not a scientist

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BCCHAP.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... it is not an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person. --Wbm1058 (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible systemic bias
The article is still tagged for possible systemic bias. This criticism had a basis in fact while the article was a covert vehicle to criticize climate change skepticism. That bias has been eliminated. Now, in effect, the tag serves to discredit the (referenced) criticism of the phrase as chosen selectively to discredit use of the phrase. An internet search reveals few, if any positive commentaries. Because of this, I propose that unless some properly referenced positive commentary is found and added to the article, that the tag be removed. Tapered (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article still has systemic bias issues. It's still a WP:COATRACK, and you should be happy that an admin went and closed it for you less than 2 days after it had been re-listed for further discussion to prevent it from being deleted. It's still an attempt to ascribe words of a few people to others. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  15:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What tangential subject(s) does this article make a point about? Is this article describing a Republican talking point, or is it just a pure coincidence that four prominent Republicans all said the same thing? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You're referring to the part of the article that said "especially by members of the Republican Party"? That's WP:OR and a violation of WP:NPOV. It's also a Fallacy of composition. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  17:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I was asking what part of the article you were referring to. You keep pointing at policy/guideline pages without explaining how those apply to this stub, such as it is. As I see that you apparently were referring to "especially by members of the Republican Party" I can respond to that. I would change that to "by some members of the Republican Party". We have identified four who said it, and none are Democrats. So it might be POV to imply that a Dem said that. I believe the Republicans oppose climate change measures on the grounds that they "would hurt the economy". Perhaps the article could be balanced if you could find a Dem who said "I'm not an economist". ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Except Obama's said it now too. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  21:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Obama has said what? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * “I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists – that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what? I know a lot of really good scientists at Nasa, and Noaa, and at our major universities.” Do I really need to walk you through this? &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  21:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, we just had an edit conflict trying to add the same Obama quote to the article. Your version is fine. I guess I still don't see your point. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The article no longer says that this phrase is often used by Republican politicians, which seems like it should address the concern about WP:OR as stated above. Do you think, Padenton, that it would be okay to remove the tag now? Everymorning  talk  22:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to that. Thanks. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  21:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you do object to my putting in the actual words that Obama said, even to the extent of claiming that a couple of sentences violated WP:LONGQUOTE, which is simple a transparent ploy to insert your POV in the article. "I'm not a scientist" is said by almost exclusively Republican politicians about global climate change, almost exclusively, and Obama made that point.  It's what the article is about, and it needs to stay in there, despite your attempts to skew the article from reality to confirm with your POV. BMK (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added refs for the claim that the phrase is primarily used by Republicans, in that every single source (except for the Obama State of the Union quote) in the article says explictly that that is the case. BMK (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:LONGQUOTE says that quotes should be concise, interspersed with prose, and not larger than they need to be as it gives that opinion undue weight. It also does not need to be a blockquote, exacerbating the undue weight problems.  As for your claim of it being "primarily used by Republicans", I see 4 examples of republicans saying it. I see 1 example of a democrat saying it. I see 5 men saying it, I see 5 politicians saying it, and so forth. That does not give you license to make a jab at Republicans in general because correlation does not equal causation. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  22:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you's like, I'll go and get another couple of dozen articles which will state that it's primarily (not always) a Republican trope, something which you know to be true, I'm sure. As for the quote being too long, that objection is just absurd.  I could have easily left it a sentence that preceded it, and a sentence just after it, but they weren't pertinent to the "I'm a scientist" aspect, so I trimmed them,  What is there is what is applicable to this article.  I consider your objection to be clutching at straws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 22:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article cited in the media


&mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Article is heavily "Yankee-centric"
The article also (in my perspective) contains content that is likely to cause a reader commit a Fallacy of composition as well as the article also containing moderate to heavy systemic bias due to only talking about the United States of America and focusing on the usage of the phrase by one specific political party Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You provided an edit summary of the removal of the information with "Removed phrase to make the article more applicable to people outside of the United States" which is complete nonsense. If you think there's a bias, read WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. A tag has been placed about the article needing to be updated. – The Grid  ( talk )  16:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view/FAQ Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What is that in reference to? – The Grid  ( talk )  23:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)