User talk:StuartH

Climate change denial
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please respond.
. --GoRight (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for clarifying something to me. On wp it really matters. --J. Sketter (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm glad you took the revert in the helpful spirit it was intended. StuartH (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

CRU email article
Re: "(And once again, what does the United Arab Emirates have to do with this?)"

lol .. I was thinking the same thing, but I think the name of the school containing the Climatic Research Unit is the University of East Anglia, so maybe he typo'ed there or something...? Cheers. BigK HeX (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources, etc...
Hi, Stuart, I have a few questions about your recent post, ''Also, we need a consensus of reliable sources, and even if we had it we would require in-text attribution (to my knowledge, I'm the only one to suggest an edit which satisfies this requirement, despite even the need for an in-text attribution failing). What was claimed as an "overwhelming majority" of reliable sources was actually a clear minority of sources.'' 13:48, 31 July 2010

1. I'm not sure what you mean by "a consensus of reliable sources" since newspaper and magazine editors don't typically put their heads together and issue general consensuses. What do you mean?

2. What do you mean about in-text attribution? Is that different from footnoting references?

3. I'm confused about "overwhelming majority" and "clear minority" of sources. How do you conclude a clear minority of sources use "scandal"? Never mind--I'm guessing you're referring to your Google count.

Thanks, and regards, --Yopienso (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. It's obviously going to be something that we need to look into ourselves. Consensus doesn't require unanimity, but unanimity makes it a much easier decision (if all or none of the sources used "scandal", it would be much simpler). Calling the incident a "scandal" is an opinion, and it does not reflect the consensus of reliable sources (this is presented at WP:NPOV). Based on the current manual of style (WP:AVOID), it is a contentious label that should be avoided or used as an in-line attribution if it really needs to be used at all. Before the simplification of the manual of style, it was even more explicit:


 * The words scandal, affair, and -gate are often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode or in politics  to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles on current affairs, except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources (e.g., Teapot Dome scandal, Dreyfus affair or Watergate).


 * Given that this clearly disqualifies "scandal" unless attributed, the question is whether the policy has actually changed in the simplification. It appears to me that the current manual of style is consistent with this, since "The suffix -gate suggests the existence of a scandal" is used as an example of a contentious label. This applies to Climategate, and, if -gate suggests the existence of a scandal, presumably scandal does as well.


 * 2. We just need to make it clear that someone else is making the claim. Quotation marks, with a footnoted reference is what is needed.


 * 3. By searching for sources which use both Climategate and scandal (given the loaded nature of the term, this would if anything over-represent "scandal"). Even still, many of the sources themselves use quotation marks (as we should if we are to use it) or "fake scandal", or "so-called scandal" . Not that these, or even any of the other sources, are automatically reliable. But picking as many examples as possible from one side does absolutely nothing to establish an "overwhelming majority", and AQFK should know this. Some sources call it a scandal, but our guidelines require that we not join them without attributing that opinion to a third party. StuartH (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't see you struck out the third point. I'll let it stand in case it helps things. StuartH (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict there. Yes, I mention that in my reply.)


 * Thanks.
 * 1. The key here in my mind is "to discredit opponents."  We find it used in a matter-of-fact way and also as debunking.  If debunking is deemed necessary, it's because someone's been saying it, which proves that, well, someone's been saying it. And I've repeatedly said the scandal, imo, is the uproar.
 * 2. The article presently has 117 footnotes, so I don't understand why you're saying you're the only one who thinks this is important.  What am I missing?  If you mean this in the lede--(dubbed "Climategate in the media)--needs attribution, I'll gladly insert a footnote.
 * 3. I may have struck this question as you were writing.  Sorry.  Nevertheless, I think you realize I haven't been "picking examples from one side," but have looked at as broad a spectrum as possible.  You may enjoy reading this third-party assessment--an opinion piece that uses "scandal" (except when quoting a hostile press) as I've suggested:  "The true scandal is the attempt to catapult such behavior into high crime and to dismiss an entire scientific endeavor based on the privately expressed sentiments of a few (a very few) researchers working in an environment of ongoing harassment."  I don't necessarily agree with all Emanuel's points, but his piece illustrates why I think we should use the word "scandal."
 * I take issue with your assertion, "every attempt to squeeze the word in results in either a ridiculously biased rewrite or an awkwardly-worded sentence that quite obviously reads like it was put in just to satisfy those who say we have to include their pet POV term." I think any English teacher would find this sentence:
 * A media scandal dubbed "Climategate" quickly erupted when climate change sceptics alleged that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community.
 * less awkward than this:
 * Allegations by climate change sceptics that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media.
 * Well, have a great weekend! --Yopienso (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick comment or two - since the fact that it has been dubbed Climategate isn't being contested, I don't think we need a citation for that, but keeping it in quotation marks as many sources are doing would help. It's mainly scandal I'm worried about right now. It implies guilt, which was inappropriate when the investigations were taking place, but with the investigations largely vindicating the scientists, it's just irresponsible now. It's advised against for good reason under wiki guidelines.


 * While I don't think there is a need for your modifications, I don't have the same issue with them as I do with the others. Entries such as "... sometimes labeled a "scandal" in the media" in the very first sentence are my concern. It just sounds like it was thrown in for no good reason. Perhaps I jumped the gun by saying they were all awkwardly-worded, but I doubt the all-or-nothing crowd would be satisfied with only the media response being called a scandal (something that I would agree with), but if he they are, it might be a reasonable compromise.


 * (Weekend more than half-over here, so it's bed time, but have a good one yourself.) StuartH (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ach, and lazy me hasn't had breakfast yet on this cold and drizzly Saturday morning... Cheers! --Yopienso (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)