Talk:Philip Campbell (scientist)

Notability
Regarding the question of the notability of the subject of this article, I would submit that as the editor of one of the most well-known scientific journals he is, by definition, making a "recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field". Dmvward (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, but from an academic or scientific point of view, his contributions are practically nil. This is not a personal attack; being a non-valeur where it counts is par for the course where it comes to this kind of "scientist" - editors, deans, governmental advisors, christmas lecture deliverers et cetera et cetera Too bad the crown persist in handing out honours to the crowd of parasites, too bad that these are the prominent scientists in the public eye..2.103.197.76 (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

reliably sourced material removed
Well sourced material has been removed from this article Such drive by reverts are i believe frowned upon, to remove well sourced material and not make mentio nof it on the talk page is not on. Kim would you be so kind as to explain why you reverted the reasons for campbell having to resign from the panel? mark nutley (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I mentioned this article, as all it did was spread the battle here. Mark, I have to agree with the removal, for the reasons I mentioned on the other page. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You think the reason he had to step down should not be mentioned in his article? mark nutley (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already in the article: his impartiality was questioned. To go into lavish detail is overkill, and does indeed appear to me as serving no useful purpose apart from publicizing this blog, and utilizing it as a source. Neither of the sources quoted in this article currently mention the blog, indicating that perhaps its role is not as large as it may feel it to be. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The blog broke the story, and was followed up be channel 4 news. I see no reason for this not to be included, it would be of interest to our readers to know the full story behind this, at the moment only half the tale is told mark nutley (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

...where angels fear to tread
I realize there are contentions regarding this article. Nonetheless, the most recent revision restores a version of the "Other work" section that I find quite unreadable. Seeing there is some question as to how much weight should be given Bishop Hill, I'm obviating all that. The important points, imho, are 1. Campbell was selected to serve on the panel. 2. Campbell resigned under allegations of impartiality. Yopienso (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I almost never get it right the first time! I've now added the footnote to Bishop Hill I'd intended to include.  This seems to me a good compromise on WP:UNDUE--the info's right there for the serious reader, but not tilting the article out of whack.  Yopienso (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A blog is not a reliable source, particularly for living people, so sorry but I have removed. I also adjusted the wording to make consistent with BBC article. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's silly. Of course he resigned because of publicity of the interview;  otherwise, how would people know?  We'll take it from public television, then.  Yopienso (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon me if I was too pert. Here's our article on Channel 4, a reliable source. I was seeking to be diplomatic and disarm the warring factions of deniers and activists we have here.  Including the Bishop Hill reference was throwing a crumb to the deniers while affirming the mainstream.  Poorly conceived, I see. Yopienso (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think the wording is OK as long as we're not poking Dr. Campbell in an eye too much. This being a CC-related article, there may be other voices heard on this. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a very small part of his career, but accepting that it gained publicity at the time, a brief mention is appropriate. The wording didn't make the sequence very clear, so I've clarified that at the expense of making it a little longer. . . dave souza, talk 19:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There had been some fine improvements here, although SlimVirgin unfortunately did not give her rationale for naming Bishop Hill in the article. I was working on some tweaking when I found Kim did some unhelpful reverting without discussion.  How would this be?

Campbell was appointed a member of an independent panel established in February 2010 by the University of East Anglia to investigate the controversy surrounding the publication of emails sent by staff at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). He resigned hours after the panel was launched after London's Channel 4 News reported that he had expressed support for the CRU scientists in a 2009 interview with Chinese State Radio.

http://english.cri.cn/7146/2009/12/03/1901s533264.htm Yopienso (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Or something like that. If Bishop Hill is included, Muir Russell and the proper name of the panel should be too, imo. I was unaware multiple references could be bunched up into one footnote.  Now that's great tidying!  Many articles could benefit from that;  as a reader, I find loads of footnotes quite distracting, annoying, and unattractive. Yopienso (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that would be OK if we could trim it a bit. Ch. 4 really doesn't mean anything outside of Britain. (In the U.S., every major city has a Channel 4.) Maybe say, "after it was revealed" or something like that. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement that the tidying up was helpful. I only returned the old version of the CRU issue, since that had been discussed on talk (above). I found the return of the issues that we've discussed earlier to be unhelpful (as the only thing). The new version seems fine, except that we are taking Ch4 on its word rather than getting an independent secondary source to make the connection - which would be ideal. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems Ch4 was corroborating Bishop Hill's report. Here's the Chinese station--it's an audio, though, which I must admit I haven't bothered to listen to.  Just type "chinese state radio philip campbell" into Google and you'll get over half a million hits.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Philip Campbell (scientist). 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081026165401/http://www.nature.com:80/npg_/company_info/exec_committee.html to http://www.nature.com/npg_/company_info/exec_committee.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080418065252/http://npg.nature.com:80/nature/about/editors/index.html to http://npg.nature.com/nature/about/editors/index.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060715025232/http://www.cancerresearchuk.org:80/aboutus/whoweare/howwearegoverned/trustees/ to http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/aboutus/whoweare/howwearegoverned/trustees/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100620102418/http://benchmarks.rockefeller.edu/viewArticle.php?id=105&issue_id=79 to http://benchmarks.rockefeller.edu/viewArticle.php?id=105&issue_id=79

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)