Talk:Guy McPherson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over promotion[edit]

Generally truly notable people do not need a whole list of every "media" show they have ever appeared on unless hey are deemed to be notable appearances (such as the Frost/Nixon interview). Having a list of his twitter feeds, face book page ect does not (especially if primerialy sourced) establish notability, and to my mind does the opposite.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI Editing[edit]

Per this discussion on WP:COIN, PESchneider has declared themselves to be McPherson's partner, and stated that 68.129.132.213 is the subject of the article. Both have edited here extensively. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so he WP:OUTED the IP. WP-editing can be difficult at times. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BLPREMOVE[edit]

Is there anyone who can help here? Anybody at all? There is a problem when editors ask for birth date citations and remove citations from University links. Michael E. Mann's page does not have a citation for his birth date or academic title as a geophysicist. Only a primary citation from his CV. Obviously, someone has a COI with Guy McPherson's BLP, and it's not McPherson or me. Please refresh yourselves with this page and when it is justified for a subject to edit his/her own page or enlist help to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help --PESchneider (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC) 3:51pm 14 May, 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LI think out BLP rules allow for the use of primary sources for uncontroversial information. I am not sure why a DOB is useful, but am not sure it's really a BLP issue either.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. A WP-article on any topic is meant to be, almost entirely, a summary of what has been written about it in independent, reliably published sources. WP:COI editing tends to ignore this to some extent.
However, stuff like born where and born when can come from selfpublished stuff (WP:ABOUTSELF), like his blog or uni-page, if such info is there. Or we can just remove it. We will however not cite them for stuff like "Dr. Guy McPherson is an internationally recognized speaker, award-winning scientist, and the world’s leading authority on abrupt climate change leading to near-term human extinction." or "Guy McPherson is an energetic speaker and talented moderator." IMO the legal cases are also doubtful to include unless there are some decent third-party coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, I am amazed at the stiff that is being cited to primary sources, given what is being objected to.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the COI-editors intend to stick around I recommend they read WP:COI, WP:OWN, WP:BLP and WP:AUTO thoroughly and follow them closely in word and spirit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, it is, per WP:DOB --valereee (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not sure the subject has objected, so that just leaves us with only borderline notable, you might have a valid point there.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, we don't know if the person who says they're the subject is actually the subject. Is it likely true? Of course. But it could be someone posing as that person in order to embarrass him, or some such. Full DOBs should never go into a BLP unless they're already widely published in RS or they're listed in broadly-available self-source such as a FB page with no privacy settings. I remove all unsourced month/day of DOBs of BLPs as a matter of course, and for those that are sourced I take check the source to make sure it's either super reliable or an easily available self-source, which indicates the subject isn't concerned about identity theft. --valereee (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did ot say they were to quote DOB "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year,", as far as I know the subject has not objected.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, that's actually different policy. We don't include it at all if there's no sourcing. If there IS sourcing, but the subject objects or is borderline notable, then we err on the side of caution and remove anyway, even if there's sourcing. --valereee (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its the one you linked to, care to give that quote that backs your contention?Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have said what you quoted was expansion of the policy, not a different policy. It's a different part of that same policy guideline. Full quote, including what you quoted: Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. --valereee (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"...by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." I would have said a publicly available CV or other self written biog would count.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they would totally count! We often use such self-sources in BLPs for noncontroversial details like birthdate, birthplace, etc. Most professional CVs probably don't list a birthdate, but a lot of social media does. I didn't see it in any of the citations given in the first sentence, but if you've found it in some self-source, by all means add it back. --valereee (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the OP mentioned it being sourced to a CV, I assumed this was the case.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was the Mann article that used a primary source listed in the CV as the source that the OP was referring to. (The CV itself didn't, but Gråbergs Gråa Sång did some pretty spiffy detective work and found the reference in a book Mann had written, saying that in Dec 1974 he'd just turned nine.) --valereee (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PESchneider, for biographies of living persons we consider exact birthdate to be a privacy issue -- something that someone with bad intentions could use against the article subject -- and so we require that the date be widely published or self-published in a broadly-accessible source. The birthdate had no source at all, so I removed the day/month and left the year, which isn't considered to be a privacy risk. The information can be found at WP:DOB. The problem is that although you say you are a friend of the article subject, we can't actually know that for sure. ETA: I've removed the day/month from Michael E. Mann as it was indeed unsourced. --valereee (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
About your comment on Michael E. Mann, if you find a WP-article with uncited/poorly cited stuff, improve it! Find a source, put a [citation needed] on it or remove it, use your best judgement. If someone disagrees/reverts, see WP:BRD. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we take articles one at a time, and that one article has flaws is not an argument to have flaws in another article. There is also something called WP:LEADCITE, basically it can be fine if the cite for whatever is in the body of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee Thank you so much for the information. This helps. I will request pending changes protection for the page since it is historically so problematic. PESchneider (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PESchneider, I'm afraid pending changes protection would only prevent the IP that's been editing -- I think you said that was Dr. McPherson himself? -- from adding anything to the article. The rest of the editors here on the talk page with you are all autoconfirmed -- that is, we're registered, logged in, and have an editing history. Only full protection would prevent us from editing, and no admin will grant that for this article, which we are all editing in good faith. I see that you did request it, and the admin who denied the request gave you some good advice. You may disagree with us, but all of us here are known to be well-intentioned reasonable editors who understand WP policy. All of us have been editing for years and have made thousands of edits. We aren't trying to be mean; we're just trying to follow policy. --valereee (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ValereeeThank you again! Maybe you weren't mean, but I still wonder why Green C didn't make more effort to have discourse with me or Guy while this was taking place. That was very impolite. Guy was trying to fix his information after others had made random edits with grammatical errors, incorrect information, and just poor syntax. You can take the professor out of the university, but you can't take the university out of the professor. He is very happy to be able to entrust it to more reliable, experienced editors like yourselves rather than to trolls, or hacks, or even newbies like me (who couldn't understand why my edit wasn't sticking! I have to laugh now imagining Green C continuously reverting my corrections and thinking I was in a war with him, lol). With more experienced eyes on the page it is less likely to be vandalized or messed up by inexperience. I thought we could always ask you Valereeeor another admin to make appropriate changes and additions with the pending changes format and I haven't yet looked at the denial to set it to pending yet, so then trolls may continue to try to edit the page. We will keep a closer eye on it now that we have real, first world, internet and I know to trust you Valereee. :) PESchneider (talk) PESchneider (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC) 17:50, 15 May, 2019[reply]

PESchneider, I'm not an admin -- none of us here at the talk page are, nor are most of the editors making changes. You can tell who is an admin by hovering over their username; if you see "sysop", that's an admin. And, yes, the best way for both you and Dr. McPherson to help protect the article from vandals is to put an edit request here on the talk page rather than editing yourself. If no one shows up for a day or so, you can ping someone. We appreciate you understanding, and if you'd like to learn more about how WP is edited, you might try making some edits to articles other than this one. After you've made what you think is an improvement, watch to see if another editor reverts, then see if you can figure out why or ask that editor for clarification at the article's talk page. Editing's very collaborative and a lot of fun when you edit stuff you're interested in but not too interested! :) --valereee (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: if you see an addition that is actual libel, feel free to remove it yourself immediately, then leave a message here to explain. No one will ever object to you or any COI editor removing actual libel. EDIT TO CLARIFY: nothing that I have seen added by any editor has qualified as libel; this information is only intended to let a COI editor know that if there were libel, any editor including a COI editor should remove it immediately. --valereee (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
valereee, please be cautious to not to let these COI editors from influencing you. Nothing she (PESchneider) has said about me is accurate, look at my edit history do I look like a vandal and troll? She kept removing the sources that are unflattering of McPherson and I kept adding it back. That is the source of her dispute with me. There is nothing in the article that is 'libel', if they believe so they should take it up with the source not Wikipedia we simply report what sources say. -- GreenC 18:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GreenC, I deeply regret that my clarification felt like a possible accusation of you! I didn't intend anything of the sort -- I only intended to let a new COI editor know that there were certain cases (libel, privacy issues) in which a COI's direct editing would be fine, not intending to indicate that I'd seen anything that qualified as libel. My sincere apologies, and I want to clarify to PESchneider that I was not in any way meaning to indicate that I had seen anything libelous from any of the editors currently editing the article! --valereee (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
valereee, thank you for the clarification and I am relieved that you agree there is no libel in the article. As a matter of background, PESchneider created this article in 2015 in userspace (in User: page). It was moved by an admin into Draft: space where it sat for over a year unapproved due to poor sourcing. I came across it in 2016 probably while doing AfC patrol and added sources and sections and cleaned up. Within 24hrs of my work it was promoted and brought into mainspace. I have since monitored it over the years. Some editors have been too negative, thus I previously made reverts like this and this. The article requires continual watching from both sides, too negative or too promotional. -- GreenC 19:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like... Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GreenC, thank you for understanding. The two edits you noted that you reverted are the kinds of libel I meant -- additions that were actual libel, and that should be removed by the first editor who sees them, COI or not, rather than requesting an edit and waiting for a non-COI editor to become available. --valereee (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GreenC :Valereee Thank you both for clarifying. I really appreciate this discussion. This is very helpful and I don't feel like I'm being trampled anymore or treated like a complete idiot who is expected to know everything about editing on Wikipedia, even if I may have presented like one, albeit innocently. I can see how Green C. may have felt trampled themself by my inexperienced editing and me oblivious that I had triggered a "war". I chuckle every time I think of that now. I apologize to you GreenC for possibly upsetting you over this nonsense. If you were half as upset as I was, you were not feeling good about this and I'm sorry for that. Communicating is always helpful from both parties. PESchneider (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you it is alright now. For my part I should have waited for you to finish editing until the next day I am sorry. I appreciate you are working with us. -- GreenC 14:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The structure of this entry verges on ad hominem character assassination[edit]

This entry begins with a brief background on Guy McPherson, which is helpful. But then, simply proceeds by labeling him 1. "an apocalyptic ecologist", 2. a "climate denialist of a different stripe", 3. "a climate gnostic... ...on the fringe", and 4. "a doomist cult hero." Yet there is absolutely no discussion on why Dr. McPherson is any of the preceding. Without any context to substantiate these allegations, this entry reads like an exercise in character assassination, and is unfit for Wikipedia. The allegations themselves are indeed interesting and noteworthy, yet can only be substantiated in "good faith", if Dr. McPherson's positions are ACTUALLY discussed, and THEN taken apart. The fact remains, within the climate science community there is growing concern about catastrophic collapse following the United Nations' own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), high level discussions that took place in 2018. Good quality discourse and scientific inquiry depends on a plurality of views, and not out right dismissal of those that do not fit officially sanctioned narratives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.226.55 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added earlier predictions (permanent city blackouts, peak oil & mass die-offs of humanity) with cites. Thalia42 (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read wp:blp and wp:lede.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kid made a claim and I'm refuting it. 104.32.209.225 (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the personal attacks. Focus on the content, not the person. -- GreenC 20:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Un-'corrected' the grammar. 104.32.209.225 (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What claim did you refute, and read wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

City of residence[edit]

Where in the state of New York does he live? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

Guy McPherson states his day of birth as February 29 at 33:05 in this interview (spending much time on the humorous fact that his birthday comes around only once every four years); at 42:03 he states that U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated when he was 3 years old: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53WcABhu6yE 76.190.213.189 (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guy McPherson gives his year of birth as 1960 in this article: https://weeklyhubris.com/the-fire-next-time/ 76.190.213.189 (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This basic information was just blanked without consensus here, compromising the encyclopedic nature of this article. Please don't continue doing that. 76.190.213.189 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DOB. Year is fine per the article you linked, if you want to add DOB or YOB to a WP:BLP, you need a good cite, and you have to add it to the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "good" citation. Please move on, and edit in a productive rather than damaging manner. 76.190.213.189 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The YT-link you added [1] didn't work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And blanked again, without consensus and against published information stated above and in the reference added to the article to support the day of birth as February 29. Let's all try to edit in a productive rather than damaging manner. 76.190.213.189 (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Can you confirm again this YT link doesn't work for you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53WcABhu6yE .. it works for me. He says February 29 at the 33:05 mark. I can save this YT at WaybackMachine, maybe you could access it that way, in case YT is being blocked by a filter somewhere. In any case, I have independently verified the source, and will add it to the article. -- GreenC 21:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenC That one works for me, but the one inserted by 76.190 didn't. It's good for DOB, agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok looks good. Thanks for being vigilant on DOBs, there are a lot of problems with that area. -- GreenC 22:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City of birth[edit]

Wasn't he born in Wallace, Idaho? If so, why doesn't the current version of this article contain this basic information? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLP. What source do you have? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence replacement[edit]

Guy McPherson himself asked me to remove the sentence

"He is known for inventing and promoting doomer fringe theories such as Near-Term Human Extinction (NTHE),[6] which predicts human extinction by 2026.[7][8][9]"

and replace it with the following sentence:

"He is known for using the peer-reviewed work of other scholars to reach conclusions supported by considerable evidence." Nvdwolk (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the first sentence has "[7][8][9]" and the second sentence does not. Those are called "sources", or "sources of information". McPherson himself is not a source of information because he has a Conflict of Interest with this article, he can't comment about himself. -- GreenC 00:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that McPherson cannot serve as a source about himself. But the phrase "promoting doomer fringe theories" is laden with emotional overtones which are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why, do RS not say it? Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"doomer fringe theories" is not neutral language. It's spin. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COI
Please remove, "He is known for inventing and promoting fringe theories such as Near-Term Human Extinction (NTHE)" "[6]"
the citation goes to a Vice article that doesn't mention "fringe" theories.
The term "fringe theory" is listed as a "pejorative" term on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_theory
Continuing to use a pejorative term in this article does not follow Wikipedia's own rules of strict objectivity and neutral point of view in a BLP.
A request to correct the pejorative term has been sent to the Volunteer Response Team. It is hoped that the editors on this thread will see that this is a necessary correction that is overdue. PESchneider (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove the pejorative reference "He is known for inventing and promoting fringe theories such as Near-Term Human Extinction (NTHE)" "[6]"
the citation goes to a Vice article that doesn't mention "fringe" theories.
The term "fringe theory" is listed as a "pejorative" term on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_theory
Continuing to use a pejorative term in this article does not follow Wikipedia's own rules of strict objectivity and neutral point of view in a BLP. This has been pointed out repeatedly by other editors seeking to correct the phrasing to a more neutral and objective pov.
A request to correct the pejorative term has been sent to the Volunteer Response Team. It would be very helpful if editors on this thread could correct this phrasing to a more neutral and objective phrasing. Thank you for your help folks. PESchneider (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should also contact the WP:FRINGE noitceboard. We have lengthy rules about fringe theories on Wikipedia and a dedicated group of people combating them. When fringe theories are presented as factual, and not fringe, it is a problem for Wikipedia. Thus the usage of this term in the article. I would point out, nobody who subscribes to a fringe theory considers it fringe, they almost always take offense at the term. It might be the use of magnets to cure cancer, evidence of aliens in the ancient world, or that global warming is a conspiracy by the left - they are all True Believers and don't consider themselves fringe. The evidence for McPherson being fringe is his reception by other scientists, which is almost universally not good. His prophecies of the end of humanity of have come and gone so many times. As one example of the extreme nature of McPherson's theories, that nobody but his followers believe. -- GreenC 16:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing "He is known for inventing and promoting fringe theories..." is problematic for several reasons, not only did he not invent the term 'Near Term Human Extinction', but also using a loaded term like "fringe theory" implies quackery, unscientific methods, and threatens his ability to gainful employment and the respect of his peers in his field of study.
You write in support of the pejorative phrase:
"The evidence for McPherson being fringe is his reception by other scientists, which is almost universally not good.His prophecies of the end of humanity of have come and gone so many times. As one example of the extreme nature of McPherson's theories, that nobody but his followers believe"
That his scientific conclusions are not universally accepted is not a surprise, nor is it unusual in the scientific world for there to be controversy when topics are as complex as human biology and climate change. Scientists have often been wrong in their predictions or conclusions but that doesn't mean they are "fringe." The work they do is made up of hypotheses, conclusions and testing those repeatedly. You only get to hear about the proven hypotheses, not usually the thousands of failed ones. Discussing those conclusions or outcomes, correct or not, does not make those scientists "fringe."
Notably, several climate scientists predicted an ice-free Arctic by 2017, then by 2022. Is Dr. Maslowski "fringe" because his Naval Post Graduate predictions of an ice free Arctic did not happen yet?
Several scientists are questioning past conclusions that had been, as you would say, well received by "most" scientists. The obvious new conclusion that they are seeing in the climate is that things are definitely worse than they expected. Does that make them "fringe"?
We need to rethink everything we know about global warming
Notable scientists in this article do not contradict what Professor McPherson has concluded.
Co-extinctions annihilate planetary life during extreme environmental change
McPherson continues to publish peer reviewed papers in notable journals and his Emeritus standing is intact with his university. Calling him a fringe theorist in his Wikipedia introduction is a biased opinion that goes against every Wikipedia BLP guideline that I have read so far.
I'm not sure why people insist on including that kind of pejorative terminology when a more neutral, factual phrase has been offered by several other editors.
Thank you again for your time, folks. Happy mother's day to our moms... PESchneider (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Guy_McPherson. -- GreenC 17:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guy_McPherson&oldid=1223517106"