Talk:Ian Plimer

What is wrong with Climate Feedback source?
I think that page is extremely useful. What is wrong with the "highly respected source" Climate Feedback ? Why is it "not compliant with WP:BLPSPS"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * RSP: "Climate Feedback is a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." I'm also pretty sure that Peter Gulutzan, the editor who removed the content, knows perfectly well that Climate Feedback is a RS, as he has a history of trying to unsuccessfully scrub this source all across Wikipedia, and is aware that the RS noticeboard considers it reliable. This is tendentious fringe editing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans's statements are about whether the source meets RS and not about whether it meets BLPSPS. The quote from WP:RSP is valueless because that is an essay-class page with a dubious statement, as I have explained elsewhere. And my other objection that the cite is unnecessary has not been addressed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)