Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri

Not a Nobel

The way article's Nobel Price section is written is as if Pachauri got the price. It is rather more based on effort of entire IPCC over the years and not just current head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.166.51.6 (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Pachauri is not a Nobel Prize winner - he is just the current head of the organization which has been awarded the Nobel Peace prize for this year. Just because he accepts the award on the organizations behalf does not make him a Nobel Laureate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genius1000 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Vague credentials

I don't see a link to his credentials as a scientist. All I can find is that he has a Doctorate in economics. I can't help but notice his educational background is completely missing. I wonder why? Traumatic (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a section on his education which an unregistered user seems to have deleted without anyone noticing. I've now restored the section. It could do with a few more references. Dahliarose (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I till don;t see any credentials as a climate or environmental *scientist*. Does he have any dgerees in thos subjects or formal training? if not his bio should not be puffed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.12.10 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The academic background of Mr Pachauri is quite hard to figure out from the article. It has degrees, but not the areas of expertise. "Was educated at...", "appointed professor in October..." is vague. Finally, we have the economics and industrial engineering. All this could be more obvious. I am led to conclude that Mr Pachauri is nothing but an administrator. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If he were a skeptic, he'd be derided as a cranky know-nothing without any qualifications or expertise in climate science and "links to" the fossils industry. But then, so too would be Al Gore.82.71.30.178 (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate: with business interests like these are we really sure Dr Rajendra Pachauri is fit to head the IPCC?

Is this something to consider adding? "This is the real reason why so many big businessmen, bankers, politicians, scientists – led, of course, by Al Gore – are backing stiffer, pan-global governmental legislation on carbon emissions. Because there are such stupendous quantities of money to be made." [1] (archived 2009-12-14)? Nsaa (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Business and Profesional Info

I believe is worth reading the following article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngcb (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rv Monckton: why

I've removed [2]. Monckton is a far-out GW skeptic; the fact that he disagrees with RKP is neither surprising nor notable. The "open letter" is trash. We should not be linking to it (except on Moncktons page, if necessary) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That is your point of view is it not? That is not a neutral position to take. My edit stated that their was a call for his resignation. And it was due to his conflict of interest.

So without prejudice tell me why you undid my edit? mark nutley (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at WP:BLP (I'm not going to fight you on that issue but be aware that other people will; so you need to be aware of it). There are many famous people and many non-famous people say things about the famous people. That doesn't mean that the biog's of all the famous people should be filled with non-notable sniping. In this case, the source appears to be totally non-notable; there isn't any hint that this has been picked up by the mainstream media. Furthermore, Lord M's biases are well known (also the letter is full of nonsense) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)al

Ok i have looked at wp:blp and i can see noting in there which says that just because you think lord monckton is a bit "far out" then his letter should be discounted as a valid referance source. It also does not matter if the letter has not been picked up by the MSM, that is besides the point. You have yet to make a non biased and reasoned argument for undoing my edit.

While looking over the rules i came across this one [[3]]

Does this rule not mean that you should not edit any climate related articles as you have a vested interest in AGW? I cite your work at hadley cru and your affiliation to real climate. mark nutley (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark Nutley, as an editor somewhat skeptical of global warming theories, I do agree with William M. Connolley here, and I believe he has correctly appealed to our policy for biographies of living people. You may like to visit my talk page to discuss this further, and learn more about the situation, but please, respectfully, cease in your attempts to add controversial material to Dr. Pachauri's Wikipedia biography. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have asked you a question on your talk page alex. However i do not see how i am adding controversial material to the article. Just the truth. Also what is your opinion with regards to williams conflict of interest regarding climate change? mark nutley (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

GoRight's edit here to put in a piece of information from The Daily Telegraph news (not a blog or sub-article) to say that a hereditary peer and an australian senator are calling for his resignation because of conflicts of interest seems reasonable to me. I came here and just linked a couple of names and seemed to have got caught in some kind of ongoing thing. I reverted this reversion because the rationale "per GoRight" is obviously false, GoRight did not undo his inclusion of this material per the first difference I've provided. I undid the second reversion because the summary "rv per WP:BLP; Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" is obviously false - the source is from The Daily Telegraph news (not a blog or sub-article) and BLP says be very firm about the use of high quality sources, which TDM surely is. I won't touch it again for a bit though I do think it should be there.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added two additional sources. Hopefully this will resolve any questions over the sourcing. --GoRight (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Its trash. I've removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing disputes are expected to be settled by reasoned civil discourse, and editors are expected to base their arguments as to content upon what can be verified, without introducing their own arguments, analyses, hypotheses, and conclusions, from reliable and independent sources. The Neutral Point of View requires that we make the best efforts to leave our innate prejudices at the door when we edit here, be they political, social, geographic, linguistic, cultural, or otherwise. Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy indeed recommends that we actively attempt to include points of view that counter our own prejudices.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And the neutral point of view does specify that we cannot consider a single view important here, unless there is significant coverage. There isn't. Combined with our rules on biographies about living persons this is a breach - Monckton is quite frankly an extremist, who believes the worlds governments are out to create a new socialist worldorder. Yes we have some newscoverage (one line in the telegraph) - but certainly not anywhere near taking it serious. Translate all this down - and you get WMC's terse "its trash". Notice also that all of you have restored the sentence "Calls for" (ie. multiple) well-knowing that this isn't the case (a very clear BLP breach). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, setting aside Monckton and Fielding's call for his resignation, the conflict of interest is getting coverage. Pachauri has publicly responded to these claims of conflict of interest Times of India article. Apart from the sources already used, the conflict of interest theme is picked up by Business Standard, India Express, China View, The Australian.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is all there is - then it is very insignificant coverage. As it brings up some rather substantial accusations - it falls under the red-flag clause, and thus it doesn't belong in BLP. If there is anything to it - then i'm sure time will tell. (notice btw. that these quote the telegraph for it - and that Pachauri rejects the claims). Do remember please that we have no deadline on Wikipedia - we are an encyclopedia not the news. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it enough? I didn't look for more than the apparently mainstream news results, avoiding the blogs, for anything other than the search term "Pachauri "conflict of interest", should I look for more? REDFLAG is a summary of Fringe Theory content guideline, not a policy document. "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." There are reports that Pachauri has a conflict of interest which he has publicly replied to. I agree that Wikipedia is not news, and that, indeed, there is no deadline, we must get the article right, but I do not agree that the reports of Pachauri having a conflict of interest and his public reply is subject to being a fringe theory.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Red flags are not only in the case of fringe theories (its a "see also" not a summary). We have surprising claims [that Pachauri should benefit financially as opposed to be on the board] thats even mentioned in most of the sources. And Pachauri is rather open about those connections, and states that it is false. It is apparently not covered by most mainstream sources. When i look at Google News - it looks very much like a short News burst, and very far from significant coverage (which is rather more than a single mention). Lets see if this changes, or if any of the State leaders react to the open-letter. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It is possibly only a short news burst, we have agreed we are in no hurry. The information would be better introduced along the lines of 'In December 2009 Pachauri addressed claims of having a conflict of interest...' so those who read that there might be some conflict of interest can see it has been addressed.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim it is not your place to brand anyone an "extremist" you are allowing you personal views to cloud your judgement.

There is more than one line in the telegraph article.

The use of "Calls" is right as it is more than one person who signed the open letter.

Pachauri`s positions on the boards of multiple companys are available for anyone to see, you just need to google the ones mentioned in the telegraph article .

If however you feel it requires more than one viewpoint it is easy enough to get links to all of pachauris jobs :) like this for instance mark nutley (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not controversial to call Monckton extremist in his views. (its not very hard to find reliable sources for that - is it?) You are conflating issues: Pachauri's position on boards has nothing to do with the resignation call (except that Monckton uses it as an excuse) - i hardly even think that it is controversial (or in any way hidden - as we can see from your link) that he is on those boards. As for "Calls" - who has signed the letter - can you find a reliable source (Fielding isn't even on it)? But it still doesn't make it "call(s)" - it is one letter => is one call. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice that there are 3 different unrelated items here:

1. P is director or on the board of several companies [unsurprising, and common knowledge (if you check)]
2. P should personally benefit finacially. [surprising claim - Source: Telegraph/Monckton - confirmed by no other source.]
3. there is a call for P's resignation [minority view: apparently only Monckton+Fielding]

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that makes no sense at all. p has set up carbon trading offices world wide. Therefore there is no surprising claim that he will make money. If you honestly think it is ok for the chairman of the ipcc to profit from the science he pushs and not consider it a conflict of interest then there is no reasoning with you is there? Your pushing of your personal point of view on this issue is plain to see and i feel my original edit can stand. I have yet to see a non biased reason as to why it may not. Also, you told me blogs may not be used in blp`s as sources. However you wrote something entirely different in this talk page [[4]] So please clarify, can i use a blog to support edits if accompanied by other sources? Thank you mark nutley (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Then by that logic the edit should stand if it reads "There has been an open letter written by lm and the senator calling for his dismissal" Also it does not matter if Lord Monckton is regarded as an "extremist" by others, for that is a point of view. This seems to me to be correct view with regards to this issue. The facts are the facts after all, Both your and wmc`s personal [[5]] is blatantly obvious to all and sundry. However i am willing to learn from this and shall consider the matter closed once a non biased pov is put forward clearly stating why this should not remain in the article. Thank you mark nutley (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again willy you are allowing your bias to overcome your supposed neutral point of view in wikipedia. Might i suggest you refrain from editing climate change related pages due to your inability to remain neutral. You say, "it`s trash" However is is entirely factual and just because your pov does not like the facts does not mean you should edit it. Goright has agreed with me that the sources were reputable. Explain please from a neutral pov why they are trash? Thank you. mark nutley (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Might i suggest... - no William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No you won`t stop your editing or no you won`t give a valid reason for doing so? mark nutley (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No you may not make that suggestion William M. Connolley (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough :) However you have still to give a valid reason for this particular edit. It would appear to me that you are still pushing your pov on this section. Thank you mark nutley (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not a wiki-editor, it has taken me a while to grasp the complexities of the rules and systems. From what I have seen today I am unlikely to contribute as I now convinced that there is a systemic problem with WP itself being edited by those who are well resourced and co-ordinated enough to promote a non neutral, mainstream POV.

In this instance, there are what I consider to be heavy enough voices in five continents repeating the conflict of interests (Business Standard, The Australian, Times of India (publish his public renouncement of the claim), India Express, China Views, The Telegraph, Canada Free Press) and the fact the conflict is raised this time by Monckton and Fielding appears to be used as a diversionary tactic by these people.

If one takes the time to look a little closer it appears that they are editors with the resources to generate 1000's of (often well considered) edits per month that promote a POV which is clearly aligned with the so called 'normal' views punted by the mainstream media. A identifiable variety of tactics are used to revert and discredit views and if one tactic fails another is used until the required POV is expressed. I cite my edit today, where ChrisO misuses the BLP rule but is rapidly supported by another editor using a different tactic.

Other examples numerous and widespread. On this topic the battle to mention the term 'Climate gate' let alone call the article by its more popular title. Again the 'normal' POV is promoted by the misuse and apparent promotion of the term 'hacking' (over the more accurate AND neutral term 'cracking') and please note that 'hacking' is used even whilst there is *no evidence* of actual 'cracking' yet (which most significantly leaves the possibility of the email release being whistle-blowing rather than criminal).

I am most distressed by this this threat to WP neutrality on important current issues and pray that WP can find a way to cure what appears to be a systemic problem. I can only hope that the WP foundation takes note of the tens of thousands of editors who have already left in protest this year due to this problem and that this problem is widely publicised and that as a result WP:Foundation strive to find a rapid solution so that good editors can edit without having to do battle with those that *somehow* have the resources to promote their own agenda. 94.168.189.5 (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In dealing with these issues one has to recognize that there are organized campaigns for and against various people and Pachauri is in the spotlight. The article as it reads is neutral, merely setting out the details of his life and career without any part saying that he is an angel or a devil, which is probably a good place to leave it. joshua halpern

revert to previous version

{{editsemiprotected}} First time doing this :) As this is a content issue i would request that this edit [[6]] is used until such a time as the dispute has been solved. Thank you. --mark nutley (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You want {{editprotected}}. But it's not going to happen anyway. -Atmoz (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Why are you so sure it will not happen? I assume the truth will prevail over your pov after all :) --mark nutley (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You want WP:TRUTH William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No william, i just want the truth in the article :)

Having looked over the options on reaching a consensus i believe that as the majority of reverts were done by those who believe this edit should stay six in total i believe [[7]]

As opposed by the four who believe it should go.

Therefore i can assume the consensus is that it should stay. May i have your arguments as to why it should not stay please. --mark nutley (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)