Talk:Joanne Nova

Scientist
MN insists that having a B Sc makes you a scientist. I think that is ridiculous William M. Connolley (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please give your reasons why you think she is not a scientist mark nutley (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Err, I've already done so. There is no reason to believe she is one. Having a B Sc doesn't make you a scientist (oh look - I've said that already). You're usually very keen on not adding unsourced information to a BLP, so please stop doing it here William M. Connolley (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * She has a degree in science and has worked as one, you don`t stop being one till your dead. I`ll put the cat back in tommorrow, your reasons for removing it are non existent mark nutley (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * She has no papers. As for "worked as one" I can't see that. She says of herself Qualifications Joanne Nova finished her Bachelor of Science degree with first class honours, A+ grades and both the FH Faulding, and The Swan Brewery Prizes, at the University of Western Australia. She majored in Microbiology, Molecular Biology and doing honours research into DNA markers for use in Muscular Dystrophy trials. She also has a Graduate Certificate in Science Communication from the ANU, and worked for three years as an Associate Lecturer for the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication program at the Australian National University. so she doesn't claim to be a scientist herself. I think you're interpreting "worked as one" from "worked for three years as an Associate Lecturer for the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication program". But a science communication program is comms, not science. And "you don't stop till you're dead" is wrong. I'm not a scientist now William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like following MN's departue AQFK is stepping up to the plate of pushing misrepresentations into this BLP. Tut tut. JN isn't a scientist. And she isn't a geneticist either. Just because you can find a throw-away comment in an article from 2003 isn't good enough. Perhaps AQFK would be good enough to read what is above, and failing that he could even go to the extreme of reading her description on her own website William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * seems like even Jo Nova's site doesn't want to say when she got her degree or did her university work; could be long ago, considering we don't know how old she is either. Anyway, a uni degree does not itself make you a proper scientist, doing scientific research does (so I'd disagree with the assertion that you're a scientist till you die, it's not an unchanging property like being baptised). There are millions of people out there who have B.Sc. degrees, and who are still interested in science, but who do not practice it. On the other had, you could be considered a scientist even without a degree, if you have a good research record. Rolf Schmidt (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A baccalaureate degree in any scientific discipline (especially one coupled with postgraduate work in research) attests to a disputant's training in scientific method and familiarity with the principles of honest and openly conducted scientific inquiry. Beyond the fact that on the subject of anthropogenic global warming — or is "climate disruption" the current propaganda term of choice? — Mr. Connolley has a longstanding history of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi (why is he permitted to alter any article on Wikipedia with his track record, anyway?), there must also be the appreciation of the common sense expression: "One doesn't have to be a chicken to tell when an egg is rotten." -- Tucci78 (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This may stun you, but a personal attack on William M. Connolley does nothing to establish that Joanne Nova is a scientist. (She's not). -- 98.108.201.173 (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues
No evidence of encyclopedic notability given by the preponderance of primary sources written by the author. Clearly, this article is exactly the kind of BLP we are trying to avoid creating, and this has been discussed on the arbcom case in detail. I've tagged the article, as it currently needs 1) sources or references that appear in third-party publications 2) needs to be checked for neutrality 3) the notability of this article's subject is in question 4) very few or no other articles link to it 5) I am concerned that it is unbalanced, as it uses a non-notable BLP as a coatrack for climate change denial 6) it is based primarily on self-published sources. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * May be well timed. Good William M. Connolley (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I see some sock has removed your prod . AFD? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with AFD just yet. I took a moment to read through Nova's website yesterday, and I was impressed with her communication skills.  She does make claims that infer her notability, so I think it is reasonable to give the IP and other editors time to work on this.  I'm very open minded when it comes to these things, and even though I dislike the climate change revisionism, I work from a fundamental wellspring of fairness and good faith.  Not quite ready for AFD.  Let's wait and see. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (a) I see several third party sources.
 * (b) I see no use of self published sources that appear suspect
 * (c) you have not expressed specifically how you believe this article to be imbalanced, which makes the addition of such a tag improper.
 * (d) The author of a best-selling book translated in to 10 languages is notable for that reason alone. If you feel she's not notable enough, nominate the article for deletion.   Fell Gleaming talk  19:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't de-tag this without even attempting to get agreement. I don't think any of your arguments stand up; in particular, you seem to be implying that any bio tagged with notability should be AFD'd; this is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Drive by taggings like this aren't helpful. If you insert a tag, you need to explain your reasoning for it.   Why is there a primarysources tag when the article has primary sources?  Why do you feel its imbalanced?  Why do you feel its non neutral?  Why do you believe its improperly using self-published sources?  At present, having six tags in the header appears to be simply denigrating the article's subject.   Fell Gleaming talk  20:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fell, you are doing it again. Every talk page you visit you ignore the discussion already occurring and claim there is no discussion.  You really need to stop doing this, Fell.  This was not drive by tagging.  I have explained what is wrong, and the article does not clear up the problem.  Your removal of the tags based on your comment at 9:27, 23 September 2010  and above is not helpful.  "I'm right, you're wrong" isn't a valid argument here or anywhere else.  You need to demonstrate your claims, not assert them.  I don't have to prove a negative, as the burden is on the person asserting notability.  You need to show that the article meets or exceeds the requirements, not me.  This has been explained to you over and over again, on many talk pages.  Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You didn't explain why you added the NPOV tag or the primary references tag.  You didn't explain why you feel a TV presenter and the author of a best-selling book isn't notable.  You didn't explain how the article is inbalanced in its treatment of the article's subject, except for your belief that the subject is non-notable.  The only tag that made sense was the self-published source reliance ... and I have since added some additional primary sources to address that.   So, do you have a concrete, viable objection to the article?   Fell Gleaming talk  22:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Explained previously at 01:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC), as you are already aware. Do we need another noticeboard notification on this? Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Why were they added in the first place? Isn't NuclearWarefare's article tags restriction still in effect? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Explained previously at 01:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC). Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I explained, your initial post does not address all the tags you inserted. The only tag which you did adresss in a meaningful way is the unbalanced tag.   Fell Gleaming talk  01:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is very easy, Fell. You have the burden to address the problems. Let's start with the easiest one first. Who is Joanne Nova, what is she notable for, and why do we have an article on her? Please answer that question directly with reliable sources as evidence. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Work in Genetics
I've removed the Work in Genetics section, because it is ridiculous. She hasn't done any "work" in genetics. She has a BSc, or something. Being interviewed about it might just barely rate a mention; an entire section is absurd William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD
Given the multiple tags, and the PROD removed by an anon, and NW's advice, I've AFD'd this. I don't have a strong opinion myself, but it is perhaps best to get this sorted William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No mention of David Evans?
Are the two not married or living together? Have they not collaborated together or used each others ideas?--scuro (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Disputes existence of AGW?
"As a blogger Nova concentrates on disputing the existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)" - evidence that she disputes existence of? I'm a regular reader of her blog and aren't aware that she disputes the existence of AGW. People don't have to dispute the existence to be considered skeptics, the debate is more complicated than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.245.219 (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Skeptic's Handbook
Heartland Institute definitely distributed a pamphlet called The Skeptic's Handbook in 2009 to a bunch of school boards, per the Science article by Sara Reardon, already cited: Science 5 August 2011: Vol. 333 no. 6043 pp. 688-689 DOI: 10.1126/science.333.6043.688:

The only missing bit of data is whether the pamphlet was written by Joanne Nova. Heartland's own website no longer mentions this pamphlet. If people are afraid that Heartland is being defamed, they probably are not. Maybe a look through web.archive.org could confirm that Heartland's 2009 website actually says they published something by Nova in 2009. One of the disputed issues leading to a report at WP:AN3 was whether Heartland could be named as the distributor.

Google Scholar search finds mostly blogs that have chosen to comment on The Skeptic's Handbook. But there is one apparently mainstream physics article by Raymond Orbach, "Our sustainable earth", where he mentions the Handbook and goes to the trouble of rebutting it: http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/74/11/112801. This is from Reports on Progress in Physics, 2011. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * She lists it prominently at her website, and rebuts Orbach & other critics here. She also boasts that her SH has "over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages." I haven't seen it, but there's certainly no doubt  who wrote it. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#109_BLP_articles_labelled_.22Climate_Change_Deniers.22_all_at_once WP:BLPN] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers WP:CFD] the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of well-sourced statements
I object to the removal of well-sourced statements about the subject's career in advocating a pseudoscientific view of climate change. She is, of course, entitled to her beliefs - but she is not entitled to have those beliefs whitewashed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

A recent edit
NorthBySouthBaranof: you made this edit which was a re-insertion of material that was inserted by Snooganssnoogans|] which [[User:PaulFulton|PaulFulton and I had previously reverted. Here are only a few of my reasons for believing that was inappropriate. I urge you to self-revert. I urge others to either agree or disagree. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The word "pseudoscientific" does not appear in the cited sources.
 * The words "The book [i.e. Skeptics Handbook] argues that temperatures have not increased" leaves out that the book said they had not increased during a stated period. (I assume the words are derived from her actual statement "None of the current models forecast that temperatures would stop rising from 2001 – 2008. ") The cite does not even point to the book, which would be more in keeping with WP:NPOV.
 * There is a cite to National Geographic, but that is not the true source because that is merely copying a post in the University of Texas newsletter, apparently this one by Cory Leahy (whoever that is), saying "They also argue that water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas and therefore increases in CO2 shouldn’t be a concern. These claims have been made in recent years by Hungarian physicist Ferenc Miskoczi and other scientists. They were repeated in the Skeptic Handbook, published in 2009 by science writer Joanne Nova." Er, in fact the Skeptics Handbook contains neither the word "water" nor the word "vapor". So Leahy's attack is either obsolete or it is mistaken, and either way we know from this context that WP:RSCONTEXT was violated. Perhaps if you had followed the guideline ("Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context.") you would have realized this.
 * There is some depending on insideclimatenews.org, which pretends to be a news organization but looks more like a blog so WP:BLPSPS applies unless someone can demonstrate otherwise.
 * You wiped out a sourced newsblog statement that she is "skeptical" and you wiped out a quote from Nova herself and you wiped out quotes from an interview with Nova and you wiped out that her columns in The Australian were about matters other than climate change. So your edit summary ("... just facts") failed to mention that you were removing facts.


 * The content in question that you oppose is supported by: (1) A peer-reviewed Columbia University Press book by a recognized expert which is explicitly about climate change denial, (2) A Science magazine article, (3) Inside Climate News, which is a Pulitzer Prize winning news outlet, (4) PolitiFact, and (5) National Geographic, which republished a collection of climate change myths compiled by UT-Austin's Jackson School of Geosciences. Thus, the content is perfectly fine and should stay in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The content you want to restore was IIRC primary source content, and should not be in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your original research regarding the National Geographic citation is not relevant - you cannot personally decide that the source is unusable because you personally don't think it applies. National Geographic is not remotely a partisan secondary source.
 * We helpfully have an article on InsideClimateNews, which is indeed a legitimate and widely-cited Pulitzer Prize-winning reliable secondary source - your personal belief that "it looks more like a blog" is not relevant or applicable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Pulitzer was not to InsideClimate News but to three of its reporters; however, that's minor and I withdraw that point from my objection. I think the other four points are valid but, since nobody else responded, am not arguing further. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Association with Australian National University
Can we please get some RS to substantiate her association with Australian National University? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Why is self-sourced biographical info acceptable to you, for example here, but not for Nova? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.249.148.251 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to doubt the self-sourced info on the Jessica Trisko-Darden page. There is reason to doubt the self-serving claims made by a climate change denier about her scientific credentials. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You removed her affiliation with ANU as a lecturer in this edit even though it is supported by the same source that you added earlier  in the next sentence after the sentence about her books being self-published.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.249.148.251 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit war and the article in general
This article makes a number of egregious errors. First, it cites and draws claims from polemics rather than scientific papers. Since when is that proper? It describes the subject in unnecessarily inflammatory and potentially libelous terms. It exceeds any reasonable standard of personal characterization. For one, disputing a scientific consensus is not citing or arguing for "pseudoscience."

Wikipedia is for information sharing. Keep your polemics to yourself. If you want to blow internet boogers, go to Facebook or Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgriswold (talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The descriptions are well-supported by reliable sources; your personal disagreement with those sources is not relevant. There is nothing "libelous" about referring to someone as reliable sources have. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This demolition job on Joanne Nova is pretty much what one would expect from illiterate charlatans who imagine that scientific truth has anything to do with consensus (or ever did).