Talk:Piers Corbyn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wired?

The current version of the Wired article seems to differ substantially from Googles cache of it William M. Connolley 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it does. I just looked it up before reverting you, the information you removed is in there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Prot / unprot

I unprotected the page. We're talking happily. If the anon won't talk, then it can be semi'd William M. Connolley 09:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Superstorm prediction

Isn't it a bit early to say his prediction was proven false? Not that I think it will happen, but five days is the generally accepted forecast horizon for conventional meteorology. Then how can satellite images taken the 20th of November prove anything? 82.95.201.33 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There was quite a bit more in there that was wrong: We are predicting three waves of storms to hit the British Isles and Scandinavia. The total effect is likely to be bigger than the storm of 1987 and aspects of them will have similarities to the tempest of 1703... The first is set to lash the nation from October 26 to November 1 and will affect most of Britain, he said... Winds will reach 80-100mph and there could be some tornado activity. But this is just the “warm-up”. From November 8 to 13 another system will batter the nation with winds of between 90mph to 110mph. While the worst affected areas will be Scotland and Northern Ireland it will still pack a hefty punch elsewhere. But the final, most intense period will be during November 24 to 28, he said. Wind speeds will reach hurricane force, with gusts potentially topping 130mph. William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The prediction of the superstorm has not been removed from his website, it's on the front page in large red letters as of now, predicting the storm to arrive by 1st/2nd December 2007. I have removed that sentence for the time being Tripper (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Here it is, in case it changes later:

Important Severe Weather Warning

HIGHEST RISK PERIOD FOR DANGEROUS WEATHER EVENTS EXTENDED TO 1st / 2nd DEC 2007

We continue to forecast the British Isles and the North Sea area are likely to be hit by a major storm(s) and associated substorms including possible tornado type events starting to show from Weds/Thursday 28th/29th Nov. These storm systems will then move into Scandinavia and have important impacts - in order of danger - on: Scotland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Wales, England, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, NW Germany, North Netherlands, North Poland and the Baltic States.
This is a superstorm period likely to include winds gusting to over 100mph from Hurricane Force winds. This is the 304th anniversary of the devastating Tempest of 26th/27th Nov 1703 (modern calendar) in which thousands of people died in southern England and when Portsmouth was destroyed. Although there are some similarities concerning solar forcing factors of storms developments, events of the 1703 magnitude are NOT forecasted for this period.

William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Piers

This bio has been edited by Piers in a distinctly non-NPOV fashion; it will require a lot of hacking back (puffing of early papers; over-hype of success of 2007 predictions) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It was too bad; I've reverted it. Just to take the intro; Piers is best known for *claiming* accuracy, not achieving it. Piers has a strong commercial interest in making his bio look good. Google [1] doesn't find much in the way of papers.

Also, what to do about edits like this [2]? The dew ponds stuff is intrinsically non-verifiable, but interesting. It obviously fails RS. But its harmless William M. Connolley (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Piers continues to edit and doesn't discuss, quite likely because he is unfamilair with wiki. I shall report this to COI and warn him William M. Connolley (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Now SEW is reverting without discussion. Which presumably means he thinks "a British meteorological consultant best known for his ability to predict the weather up to one year in advance" is defensible. I don't William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet another problem with the PC/SEW version: In 1979, following some years of activism, he studied astrophysics at Queen Mary College, London, and wrote scientific papers on the mean matter density of the universe and the Cosmic string loop theory of galaxy formation - what were these papers? I can't find them. Where were they published?

What are we to make of the skill of his forecasts was proven by significant returns (about 40% profit) on a total of around 4000 weather bets placed on a monthly basis with William Hill at odds devised by the Met Office between 1988 to 2000 at which time William Hill banned his (too profitable) betting account. Nevertheless he still bets on the weather at times in various ways through various bodies in association with others. Is any of that verifiable? It has no source. Could in various ways through various bodies in association with others possibly be any vaguer? It is unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI

Instead of speculating about me and making up things some would do well to ask me or go to source. Degrees are easy to check for example. I have a first class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc In Astrophyics from Queen Mary College for example. For WeatherAction actual forecasts (rather than taking exerpts from newspaper reports) you can ask via www.weatheraction.com or www.lowefo.com (where storm etc reports with sources - we (WeatherAction) always use reliable sorces for weather reports are also available). Libellous material against me being edited into a biog of me is totally unacceptable and I will take the matter further. Meanwhile I will attempt again to edit the the defamatory item into an honest version. This however is becoming a farce. Piers Corbyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiersCorbyn (talk • contribs) 22:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please specify here any portions of the article that you feel libellous and those points will be addressed. Further massive reverts or edits violating WP:COI will result in a much longer block. Vsmith (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for talking, Piers. I wonder if you might address some of the problems I've raised with your version. For example, wrote scientific papers on the mean matter density of the universe and the Cosmic string loop theory of galaxy formation - could you provide exact references to those papers please? William M. Connolley (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Article review

I'm reviewing this article for a number of compliance issues. This note is mostly for Piers, to understand what's up and why.

Removal of text

I have removed text such as the following. It is unencyclopedic and unsuitable:

1. Talking to readers -- "This unacceptable activity includes inserting false statements in his biography in Wikipedia so if you are reading this please keep a copy for future reference before it gets falsified" (we don't talk to readers in articles)
2. Apologetics -- "Weather Action ... does not receive state subsidy" (the article does not say it has, no need to say it hasn't)
3. Promotion/styling -- "the power of his predictions ... the skill of his forecasts ... demonstrated forecasting skill ... success has netted him and his company a wide range of weather sensitive customers ..." and so on (inappropriate style; whether the underlying statements are factual or not, we don't promote)
4. Self published text -- "proven skill verified ... " and so on (eg, cites from websites you have involvement with, such as weatheraction.com or lowefo.com)

Citable evidence needed

In addition a large number of statements need to be removed as hearsay unless an independent and reliable source can be shown for them. This is not because they are true or untrue, it is because there is a site policy that we do not say anything that canot be backed up by a good external source that is not connected with the subject, nor a "blog" or "forum" or the like, nor a newspaper or editorial that's just repeating your words unchecked. None of these are good evidence of the kind we use. A proper news, academic, scientific or other source is usually required, that can be checked.

In this area I need you to find a source for the following statements. I accept that there may be no sources for some of them, that's unfortunately not uncommon:

1. A source that confirms your betting history or ban with Hill Samuel. Every source I have, is essentially repeating your description. I'd like something that is not just your word on it - not because of trust, but because as a matter of policy we cannot take a persons word for it as evidence, in any article we have. Found, though evidence of ban still needed.
2. Dates, titles, publications and page references of each paper stated to have been published.
3. The dates when your business was listed on AIM, the company name (and number at Companies House), and whether you were the owner, or what position you held (we don't have any of this right now). Found
4. Evidence of the 2007 claims - where these can be confirmed to have been published, or amended.
5. I have concerns about placing total reliance on the 'Wired' article of 1999 as a sole source for certain information. One long bio article in a website/magazine, has limitations.

Thanks!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Wired - agreed. Its also rather clear that all the info in the wired article has come straight from PC rather than journalistic research, so really its just PC speaking, again William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes from PC.

1. re immediate above. Oh yes 'rather clear' so you have spoken to Wired??? They did plenty of independent research. Curious you want to talk most about teh longest ago studies too.

2. Doing me or anyone down does not make those who do such better people.

3. I removed "Because Corbyn does not publish his prediction techniques in scientific journals, his methods are not taken seriously by official weather prediction bodies." because this is a false statement. I suggest you name any official weather prediction body which states they do not take our forecasts seriously. I think there are no such bodies. I have correspondence and have had meetings which indicate what we do is taken very seriously at very high levels of Govt and 'official' bodies (phone me if you want +447958713320). Their problem is what to do about it.

4. I removed "Scientific studies and reports conclude that [[solar activity]] is not responsible for [[global warming]].<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html</ref>" because (a) it is irrelevent to my case that there is no statistical evidence in 22,000 years of data that CO2 controls world temperatures or climate. (b) it is nothing to do with my biog (c) It is entirely refutable and I have done so.

This is just another case of the sort of innuendo some are intent to heap into my 'biog'. Although I recognise and thank vey honest and serious objective people too, what is going on in wiki is farce. Why should 'biogs' (and I never started mine) be riddled with misrepresentation and malevolent innuendo?

Piers Corbyn

I also take issue with the ""Scientific studies and reports conclude that [[solar activity]] is not responsible for [[global warming]].<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html</ref> " bit. If you actually read the source article all it says is that sunspots are unlikely a causative factor in global warming. It does not say that all solar activity is ruled out, as a matter of fact there is a section in the article titled "Sun Not Off the Hook for Warming" that goes on to explain that not all solar activity can be ruled out as much of it is not fully understood yet. It's interesting because the actual article is titled "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" but then it immediately contradicts itself. I guess I could see how the editor who added that source could have made that mistake by reading the title, but in general I find it's good idea to read the entire article if I'm going to use it as a source instead of just going off the article headline. I any event, I'm removing this line as it's not pertinent to a biographical article on Piers Corbyn and the statement isn't truly supported by the source it cites. Elhector (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

www.lowefo.com

I removed "( The full forecasts are available via www.lowefo.com )". If the forecast is there, its not obvious. This just looks like commercial spam. To point out the obvious, there would also need to be evidence that the forecasts had been there *before* the event William M. Connolley (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"For info in English, see the page Netherlands." is not obvious enough? -- SEWilco (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Its a touch vague, don't you think? Perhaps you could find a URL for the november "forecast", and some evidence that it was made a year ago? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing sources

I just clicked reference #14, "^ a b Matthew Rowan. "Haven't the foggiest? Read on". Independent, The (London).", and findarticles.com gave me a 404 page. The cited article needs to be found again, or replaced by another source. David Nemati (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

First class honours

I was at IC (briefly) a while after Piers and remember an article about him in one of the college newsletters, so I can confirm he's telling the truth about having a First from there (and they take some getting). If memory serves though, they got his name wrong - he was referred to as Piers Carbyn :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltingpot (talk • contribs) 12:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Meltingpot (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Alas it is no use - your recollections aren't a WP:RS. But the college newspaper would be, if you still had a copy William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry - it was over 30 years ago.

Meltingpot (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation of predictions

Removed the comments below as the critics are not sourced and Main Stream Media opinion like "The Independant" is irrelevant. Any opinion can be concocted using MSM articles.

"In accordance with this view, critics point to inaccurate predictions, such as a white Easter in 1989,[13] and "raging weather" in September 1997.[14]

Outside the scientific arena, according to Corbyn in 1998, independent research conducted by insurers showed that for a particular day, up to nine months in advance, Weather Action's forecasts have achieved an accuracy rate of 55 per cent, rising to 80 per cent for 24 hours either side.[14] "

~~ Sun Spot

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.234.253 (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that contradicts what's in the "mainstream media" then feel free to add it. But don't remove sourced material just because you don't like where it comes from. ... discospinster _talk 17:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't use the MSM to do original research. Site peer reviewed material please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.234.253 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no original research being done here. The article says that critics say such-and-such and this is cited by a reliable source. The research is done by the newspaper, not by the Wikipedia editor. If the newspaper's research is faulty then you can cite other reliable sources to show that. ... discospinster _talk 17:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference in the lead

I removed a reference in the lead because it's a very brief news article that uses Piers Corbyn himself a reference, essentially - there was no actual science/proof that explains that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.160.107.179 (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing another pointless "source"; the line suggests that Corbyn was banned from betting, whereas the Guardian article described him receiving ownership of his company again. Nothing to do with betting at all163.160.107.179 (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to change this sentence in Global Warming section

Currently the sentence reads: Corbyn is well-known for his opposition to the idea of anthropogenic global warming. He writes about it on his website[28] and appears on talk shows to discuss his views of the weaknesses of the argument for manmade global warming.[29] Corbyn continues in this belief despite widespread scientific consensus that global warming is occurring due to human activity.

This seems a little awkward and written this way it reads more like an editorial rather than an neutral encyclopedia. Without changing the facts in these two sentences, I would like to suggest writing it this way: Corbyn is well-known for his opposition to the idea of anthropogenic global warming contrary to scientific consensus that global warming is due to human activity. He writes about it on his website[28] and appears on talk shows to discuss his views of the weaknesses of the argument for manmade global warming.[29]

any objections? Too soon for love (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

AusLondonder adding Page Restriction

User:AusLondonder: You added a Discretionary sanctions|cc on this talk page. It's my understanding that this is a page restriction, and page restrictions (according to the Discretionary sanctions page) are to be set by "any uninvolved administrator". Do you think I am understanding incorrectly, or do you think you are an uninvolved administrator? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on here, some clarification needed? Eversync (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably. It was about this edit. Pending clarification, I'm removing AusLondonder's discretionary sanctions notice from the talk page. But if most people think the talk page is subject to them, fine. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Suppose I meant clarification from someone on the procedural issue of 'uninvolved', as you asked. Eversync (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Or given the non-response, could you clarify are you suggesting User:AusLondonder could be considered involved in what way? Eversync (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies not involved but not an admin. Have seen disputed editing re climate change. AusLondonder (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying; understand why you tagged given the way that material was dealt with. Eversync (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

AusLondonder: I apologize too, since it's obvious that I worded my question so poorly that I caused an apparent misunderstanding by EverSince, and I might be misunderstanding the requirements myself. Re the recent edits by EverSince, though, I don't see the disputing was re climate change but was re sources. That is: (a) the word "denial" depends on a headline in the Express; (b) the words "Conservative circles" depend on a quote from Bob Ward without saying so; (c) the word "repeatedly" suggests there is more than one article by Johnson in The Telegraph, but I see only one; (d) Johnson's Telegraph article actually says he "... wonders whether it might be time for government to start taking seriously the possibility — however remote — that Corbyn is right." ... which I guess is the base for the Wikipedia statement that Johnson has suggested "that Corbyn might be right", but that's more than Johnson said; (e) a press release and a newsblog by a non-professional are the sort of sources one could challenge. Accordingly I initially reverted the changes, but subsequently decided: nah, better to wait and see whether anybody else objects. If someone does: make it a new section please. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Those seem like perfectly fair points to me, but the kind of detail suited in usual way to collaborative editing of people's efforts rather than blanket reverts. As well as BJ's London assembly comments (per assembly member sourced piece on gov.uk site with apparent editorial oversight), and comments in that 2013 DT article including "I look at the snowy waste outside, and I have an open mind"), it's trivial to find other articles e.g. Daily Telegraph 2010 "The question is whether anthropogenic global warming is the exclusive or dominant fact that determines our climate, or whether Corbyn is also right to insist on the role of the Sun. Is it possible that everything we do is dwarfed by the moods of the star that gives life to the world?" Eversync (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Forecasts 2014/2015

I don't quite know what EverSince means by “had to delete the use of primary Met Office records for OR comparisons”. Athough I am a novice at Wikipedia, I do know that Original Research does not include a reference to Met Office data. I wonder if I am missing something here but I cannot think of a better type of reference than plain statistics from a world-respected organisation.

As for relevance, the article contained specific weather predictions by Piers Corbyn, leaving the reader to wonder “well....? What actually happenned?” In that respect the relevant passages were incomplete. They reported predictions without facts. I added facts and they were taken away. EverSince: I am restoring my edits. Please don't remove facts again.

As for mentioning that August 2014 was “the only month in that year that was cooler than average”. That was because the prediction was not just wrong, it was spectacularly wrong and If PC doesn't like the reporting of that fact, he can try to make better predictions.PussBroad (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies my edit comment not very clear; not disputing relevance or reliability of the Met source. I believe the relevant bits of Wikipedia:No original research:

No "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." ............. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." ............ "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source."

Not always clear cut, but I believe if you take a weather prediction source, and then a weather results source - neither of which mention each other - and try to combine them on Wikipedia to imply how accurate the prediction was, without any secondary source (independent experts or those involved) comparing and analysing them (like the source I just added for the 2012 prediction), then that seems to be original research.

On the broader point I'm not sure how to make the section fair overall, given no peer-reviewed meta-analysis of all predictions over the years. No doubt there could be lists of failures as well as successes for any prediction service to some degree?, but how to balance/interpret/compare to some baseline using secondary sources? That's separate of course to an analysis of the validity of the claimed scientific method of prediction. Eversync (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

On the first point, I haven't analysed or synthesised the published material, so that's fine, and in this case the conclusion is obviously simply that the temperatures were what the Met Office showed them to be. I didn't for example try to demonstrate that they showed continuous cooling of the British Isles.

On point number two, comparing is obviously not combining. The spirit of the rule is that facts should not be misrepresented. And if experimental results show that the phlogiston theory of burning is not correct, do I have to leave out the experimental results so as not to combine multiple sources?

On point number three, again like point one I haven't made any interpretive or synthetic claims, so it is not applicable.

So my comments and reference are not OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PussBroad (talk • contribs) 12:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah the issue is not necessarily misrepresenting, it's about constructing your own research by finding raw records and linking them to hypotheses (predictions in this case), implying your conclusion (you wrote 'actually...'). That actually needs to be based on secondary sources addressing the comparison themselves with editorial oversight (like the 'Foundations of Chemistry' source for Phlogiston theory, or the 2012 source I just added here - which gives different points of view on the results suggesting that it's not necessarily as obvious as you might think). Eversync (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Constructing my own research? No I obviously didn't. And the word "actually" is obviously a statement of fact, not the drawing of a conclusion. If I had said that the Met Office data clearly show that Piers Corbyn is bad at predicting the weather, that would be my own conclusion. I did not. Neither did I analyse, synthesize, combine, or make claims. I merely stated facts. You seem to be trying to use the flimsiest of technicalities to get my contributions rejected. I think arbitration is needed.PussBroad (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I am not trying to reject anything hence why I put 'had to' - you simply can't find your own raw data and link it in to another point in the article to show something. If so anyone could go find any prediction over the last several years and any related outcome data and stick it in the article. Suggest getting Wikipedia:Third opinion - would be good to agree for the section as a whole where to draw the line because it is subjective to a degree, I'll list it there soon unless you do. p.s. you shouldn't really edit your own comments after such time and after replied to. Eversync (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

A third opinion has been requested. I see that there is disagreement. What is the question? What is the material about whose inclusion there is a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - the specific issue is the addition of primary source weather data to the Forecasts 2014/2015 subsection, linked to the two forecasts there (from secondary sources which may not themselves have reported the outcomes). Eversync (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Is a fourth opinion OK? It's pretty clear that this is WP:OR unless you can find a source that does the same. More broadly, the sequence of "Forecasts [year]" sections would best be trimmed down and folded into the "Evaluation of predictions" subsection. We don't need a blow-by-blow account of each year's predictions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Is inclusion of primary sourced weather data to the Forecasts 2014/2015 subsection WP:OR or WP:SYNTH):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Piers Corbyn and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I note that: an alternate opinion has been provided by Short Brigade Harvester Boris; this has not influenced the opinion presented here, but may be considered to obviate the third opinion process. as this article is a biography of a living person, WP:BLP also applies; reference to this policy was not required in the formation of this opinion, but may be useful if the dispute continues. On the basis that: core content policy, WP:OR, states: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.; core content policy, WP:OR@WP:SYNTH further states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.; the primary sourced weather data is not directly related to the subject of the article, and no source has been provided verifying an analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis of that data which relates to the subject of the article; it is clear that the inclusion is a synthesis which implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. I, therefore, support removal. If a wider consensus is required, suggest referring the question to WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 17:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for responding (Ryk72 formally in place of Robert McClenon according to latter's talk page). I will remove the two sentences shortly on this basis. More broadly I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris there shouldn't really be yearly subsections for a 'blow-by-blow account'. Just a summary giving due weight to coverage in the media I suppose. If no follow-up was published on a certain prediction that would still leave the problem PussBroad raised of leaving readers wondering (or having to look up records themselves), don't know if that can be avoided unfortunately... Eversync (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2015 (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 WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Journal paper

We link to a journal paper in the The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, but the URL does not seem to work. Does anyone know the title of the paper? ~ UBeR (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Using Scopus, I find only one 'paper' with his name on it. It is little more than a letter to Weather, and the latter is little more than a 'fanzine'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.88.43 (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Who is PC?

There is a genuine disagreement about whether PC is an astrophysicist or meteorologist (Personal attack removed--UBeR). I would prefer to describe his as neither, but simply say what he is known for William M. Connolley 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it it help accuracy if one stated his actual degree? I can confirm he attended Imperial College as I met him there many times. I know he was in the Physics Dept but I am not able to confirm if he completed his degree, I just assume so. - Andy O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obrienaj (talk • contribs) 08:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He provides meteorological consulting. That makes him a meteorological consultant. Saying he's an astrophysicist is misleading - he doesn't have an astrophsics consultancy; and saying he's a British citizen is so general as to be meaningless.

Personally I don't like the guy but just because he's not got any Met Office training is no reason to deny that he makes his living as a meteorologist, and a very well known one at that.

Usually the term meteorologist is applied to someone with a degree or certification in the specialty. IF Piers does not have these qualifications, perhaps the term "weather forecaster" would be more accurate ? Andy O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obrienaj (talk • contribs) 08:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to argue this point but the recent edits by single purpose accounts are clearly intended to be disruptive. I didn't know there was a weather mafia but well, you learn something new every day.

andy 22:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

How about we change the first sentence to: "...is a controversial British meteorological consultant, best known for his claims..."? I.e. not a meteorologist as such but certainly someone who makes money out of selling a meteorology service. It's a duck of sorts, although a funny-looking one. andy 09:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess I could go for your compromise. I'm rather unsure that we have good sources to demonstrate his work though - most (all?) of it is essentially sourced to PC himself. William M. Connolley 09:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Piers Corbyn did a degree at Imperial College in Physics, he then went on to become a weather forecaster using astrophysics as his main tool for predicting the weather, rather than conventional meteorlogical methods. I would say this makes him a weather forecaster, an astrophysicist, a meteorlogical consultant but perhaps not a "Meteorologist". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.156.80 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Having a degree in physics doesn't make him a physicist, let alone an astrophysicist, any more than having history degrees makes Chris Evans MP, Jessica Morden MP and Mark Tami MP 'historians' (which they're not). I've edited the initial description to say 'weather forecaster and businessman'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisHutchinson (talk • contribs) 09:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Piers Corbyn. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070703023008/http://www.weatheraction.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 to http://www.weatheraction.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Piers Corbyn

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Piers Corbyn's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "telegraph.co.uk":

• From Daily Mail: Ward, Victoria (10 February 2012). "Nathaniel Rothschild loses High Court libel battle". The Daily Telegraph. London.
• From The Daily Telegraph: "The Daily Telegraph motto: Was, is, and will be". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 7 December 2016.
• From Boris Johnson: Llewellyn Smith, Julia (18 May 2008). "Boris Johnson, by his mother Charlotte Johnson Wahl". The Sunday Telegraph. London. Retrieved 7 July 2010.
• From Jeremy Corbyn: Mendick, Robert (22 August 2015). "Jeremy Corbyn, the boy to the manor born". The Daily Telegraph. London, UK. Archived from the original on 11 September 2015. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016: "Letters: Britain's competitiveness is undermined by a failing EU".
• From Pave Lane: Mendick, Robert (22 August 2015). "Jeremy Corbyn, the boy to the manor born". The Daily Telegraph. London.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Denial and using single-study quotes to dismiss the point, and repeated edit undo's

Using "denial" about a personality's reserves on some scientific aspect also sounds childish and dismissive. Science is not about "trust" or "denial", but about different, sometimes contradicting, points of views and perspectives. If we allow the word "denial" in a scientific debate, then we're not talking about science anymore but about religion.

Just because some BBC article 12 years ago mentioned ONE study which appears to contradict Piers Corbyn's findings or allegations, doesn't mean that Corbyn is "denying" the "mainstream science". This is an over-generalisation which shouldn't have its place on Wikipedia. If the point is to make sure that readers understand that "mainstream science" proves Piers Corbyn wrong (which may or may not be the case), then it should be backed by something more solid and substantial that a single article on the BBC quoting a single study done more than 12 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.14.234 (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, climate change denial should be marked as such and treated as such. "Climate change denial" is a well-established term amongst the scientific community referring to a variety of behaviours, among which include false claims such as "CO2 has never driven, does not drive and never will drive weather or climate. Global warming is over and it never was anything to do with CO2. CO2 is still rising but the world is now cooling and will continue to do so." — Bilorv (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Arrest in the lead

Please discuss here before adding or removing mention of arrests to the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Arrested again

I feel that this news may be relevant to the article Five people charged with breaches of Coronavirus regulations --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021

In “Controversies” section - second sentence there is a spelling mistake

Change “ conroversy” to “controversy” PauloT1971 (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the request, PauloT1971! — Bilorv (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 denialism

This section has become ridiculously long and needs to be severely pruned William M. Connolley (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. — Bilorv (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Climate Change Denier

I do see there is some info about his status as a climate change denier in the article, but also feel it should be more prominent, since this is why people listen to him, and he has notoriety.

For example, this quotation of his from Russia Today (RT TV) could be included:

"I'm not interested in helping liars and fraudsters. Climate change is natural. Extreme events in climate change are caused by the sun. It's nothing to do with co2. There's no connection between carbon dioxide and climate, and you can look at the data and see that there is no correlation at all..."

Here's the link: https:// youtu. be/ Z1USXpYCa28?t=233 Title of the youtube video is "ECO Fascism.mov"

69.206.191.69 (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)R.E.D.

I think this could be notable, but requires high-quality secondary sources, i.e. a non-tabloid newspaper. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Having been intrigued that a weather forecaster could be at times a climate change denier, I read this article to see what his 'met' experience was. Didn't he do any forecasting work (eg for Met Office) before he set up WeatherAction?Cloptonson (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 MAugust 2021

Anti-vaccine protesters storm BBC HQ – years after it moved out! Piers Corbyn was there. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/09/confused-anti-vaccine-protesters-storm-bbc-hq-years-after-moved-out 109.148.30.114 (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Amusing as the story is, it's perhaps not due weight for an already very long section when the article only mentions Corbyn in passing and he's attended many conspiracy theory protests (dozens? hundreds?) since the pandemic outbreak. — Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

Change “conspiracy theorist” to “freedom activist” and change “Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019, he has described the virus as a "hoax" and campaigned against lockdowns and against vaccination, falsely describing potential vaccines as dangerous” to Since the beginning of the COVID-19 hoax in 2019, he has accurately described the virus as a hoax and campaigned against lockdowns and against vaccination, accurately describing potential vaccines as dangerous” because they are 2A00:23C5:EB80:9B00:F175:BF5C:E853:59E6 (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Sirdog9002 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You provide reliable sources that support the current format and lots of scientists have come out and said convid is a hoax and it is as deadly as the flu and the vaccine reactions are recorded by the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:eb80:9b00:f175:bf5c:e853:59e6 (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

You can read the sources in the article and at COVID-19. Any scientists that say "convid is a hoax" are motivated only by bribery, such as Mr. Corbyn. — Bilorv (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It’s not real and post some evidence he’s been bribed 🤣 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:eb80:9b00:14f8:1d2:645:74aa (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Try reading the article. "COVID-19 denialism" contains sourced mention . Meters (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Why do we have a "Controversies" section?

A "Controversy" usually refers to an issue about which a great many people are divided, leading to prolonged discussion. The "Controversies" section in this draft seems to refer to the subject's more unsavoury campaigning tactics which were perceived by all but his most ardent supporters as examples of his very bad judgement. They are in no way "controversies" in the normal sense of the word. Almost nobody is continuing to debate his behaviour. There is no real division of opinion amongst the general public when it comes to this person. So why do we have a "Controversies" section anyway? Salimfadhley (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Split up the section and moved the content to more appropriate sections. Philip Cross (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Anti-vaxxer label

@Zerbstill: @2001:8003:34a3:800:d95b:7f62:2386:c37d: @Glen Glens:

Regarding this recent addition, I find the reasoning spurious -- Anti-vaxx redirects to vaccine hesitancy, which seems to be an an umbrella term encompassing many different kinds of opposition and motivations for doing so. Anti-vax could be interpretted as derogatory, so one possibility is that we could use the term "vaccine skeptic" which also redirects to the vaccine hesitancy article; his brand of anti-vaccination rhetoric goes way beyond simple skepticism and fuses with conspiracy theorism, for example: "Bill Gates wants vaccinations to control you and to control women’s fertility to reduce world population.", so it feels a bit white-washy to water it down. In other words, anti-vaxxer does seem to fit. Eik Corell (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

For someone to attempt to remove tbe description because according to him/her Corbyn needs to be against all vaccines is a spurious claim and I strongly suspect is a way to legitimise Corbyn's bizarre claims (does that person think that one needs to be racist against all races to be called a "racist"?). Corbyn has linked vaccines to the Nazi Auschwitz camp, falsely claimed that the vaccines are causing lots of deaths, etc. It is correct to describe him as an "anti-vaxxer", there is no need to beat around the bush.--Glen Glens (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zerbstill: Please stop making disruptive edits on the article and explain why you think "anti-vaxxer" is not an accurate description of Corbyn. Go and do some research aboit his views on vaccines, in particular the Covid vaccines.--Glen Glens (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The racism rhetoric above doesn't fit, Lexico clearly states that an anti-vaxxer is someone who is opposed to vaccination. If Piers supports all vaccines apart from the Covid, this means I am correct. I have not seen evidence to suggest otherwise. I'm not sure why you guys are not getting it? www.lexico.com/definition/anti-vaxxer --Zerbstill (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC) I'd also add to the comments above about Bill Gates - these are clearly more conspiracy theories than anti-vax theories - for example, an idea that Bill Gates was to poison water would be more of a conspiracy theory than an anti-water theory and therefore the comments you make are already reflected in that initial introduction.--Zerbstill (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Lexico's definition does not specify total opposition to vaccination, it says "Opposed to vaccination.", which can mean any number of things. Merriam Webster has a more expanded definition [here], as does dictionary.com here, as do other dictionaries and sources in general. None of these support the claim that anti-vax refers exclusively to full opposition. As far as I can tell, the general consensus is that anti-vax, while potentially derogatory, is generally understood to refer to people who are opposed to vaccination on various grounds and to various degrees. It seems to me that the compromise here would be to label him anti-vaccination, with the purpose of avoiding the negative tone of the anti-vax label. And again, anti-vaccination is encompassed by the vaccine hesitancy article where it links, and that article is mostly well-sourced. Eik Corell (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, I'd like to point out if he shared criticism of basketball, that wouldn't make him anti-sport, but rather anti-basketball. Can we label him anti-Covid-vax? This Anti-vaxxer or anti-vaccination term is definitely not being used properly in my view and to the average reader could be very damaging. I am also not aware of him being involved in vaccination prior to Covid-19 pandemic. I do think we are getting closer to a proper consensus--Zerbstill (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The source you gave does not state "anti-vaxxer" refers to opposition to all vaccines. Whether or not you find "anti-vaxxer" to be derogatory is your opinion, but people who are opposed to vaccines and/or spread misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about vaccines are known as anti-vaxxers.

Anti-vaxxer Piers Corbyn takes fake bribe from pranksters posing as Astrazeneca reps

How COVID-conspiracists and anti-vaxxers are getting organised and making money

The sources describe him as an anti-vaxxer.--Glen Glens (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

On 15 August User:Zerbstill tried to remove "anti-vaxxers" to describe the protesters who attended an anti-lockdown protest. See here. As I expected, he is trying to legitimise Piers Corbyn and the anti-lockdown protesters.--Glen Glens (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Glen Glens you have become very side-tracked here - we are not discussing other edits - we are trying to get a consensus here. However to address you claims, "tried to remove "anti-vaxxers" to describe the protesters who attended an anti-lockdown protest" - please read that back through in your head and you will realise it makes sense, it was an anti-lockdown protest, not an anti-vax protest. You even admit it yourself.--Zerbstill (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC) I have updated the introduction based upon our work here, as you can see, I have taken into account the vaccine hesitancy article and have used it in my revised edit. I believe the new verison is more informative to newcomers.--Zerbstill (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The people protesting were anti-vaxxers. Your attempt to remove that from the other article was quickly reverted. You have not reached a consensus via here so I have no idea why you think you can just keep editing willy-nilly. The sources state he's an anti-vaxxer and that is all that matters. By the way, I've reported you for your disruptive edits.--Glen Glens (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Zerbstill's suggestion -- call Mr Corbyn anti-covid-vax specifically -- seems reasonable to me unless/until somebody shows he's against vaccination in general. This should also mean removal of Category British anti-vaccination activists. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The recent additions [3] introduce some more problems: Piers Corbyn seems to be a climate change denialist, so I don't know how accurate it is to talk about him getting involved in theories related to it. If I were to rewrite the latest edit it would be something to the effect of "Corbyn initially became involved in climate change skepticism, later turning to Covid-skepticism and vaccine skepticism as well as participating and speaking at COVID-19 protests in the U.K during the COVID-19 pandemic." This avoids the anti-vax label, but also adds mention of the spreading of misinformation regarding covid, i.e covid-skepticism, again without using overly incendiary language, it also avoids mention of lockdown as I'd imagine many of these protests are split between being against lockdown and doubting covid exists, doing this by just calling them Covid-19 protests. Eik Corell (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) I have looked at the sources cited in the article and performed my own searches and found that most reliable sources about Corbyn's COVID-19 activities describe both him and his fellow protesters as anti-vaxxers or use synonyms. I therefore support retaining the wording in this article. No watering down of the term to only say "anti COVID vaccination" seems to happen in the sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the issue here the sources describe him as anti-vax, so we describe him as such. If there's an issue with that label, it should be taking up with the sources we're referencing. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

There's also appears to be discussion about how we should interrupt sources, we shouldn't. We should only state what the sources state. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

There's something separate not being addressed: He also appears to be what could be called a Covid-skeptic. See this article, though I recall finding an article where he admitted it was real. Would this be covered by the anti-vax label? I would argue that it would. Eik Corell (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you Eik Corell (talk) on your comments above. What I want to say to the comments below your reply is the legacy media articles being used as sources are often sensationalist and therefore terms such as "anti-vax" become attractive to them to lure in readers - we have to be careful to properly review and evaluate it. I think this pandemic has shown how sensationalist the media can be and I think it is important Wikipedia is above this. How does everyone else feel about Eik's comments above?--Zerbstill (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Which sources do you believe to be sensationalist in order to lure in readers? The Times? The Daily Telegraph? The Guardian? The Independent? They are the four national newspapers best known for their lack of sensationalism. So maybe it's BBC News or ITN or Sky News, which are anything but sensationalist? If you wish to question the status of these as reliable sources and say that your personal opinion is more credible than what they say then please start a thread at WP:RS/N. Of course any source can get something wrong, but you are expecting us to place your unsourced opinion against their unanimous reporting that Corbyn and his fellow protestors are anti-vaxxers. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: Glen Glens comments struck (sockpuppet of English Patriot Man). —PaleoNeonate – 00:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger - it is a common trait that newspapers will use bold headlines to draw in readers so I believe we should be careful there was that I was saying.--Zerbstill (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Headlines are never reliable no matter the source. Only the content of the article is reliable. This has been how we handle such things I believe since our early days i.e. the early 2000s and definitely since the early 2010s, so long before the current pandemic. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

And, since an RfC in 2020, that's been part of a guideline, WP:HEADLINES. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove Corbyn's denial about being a conspiracy theorist from the lede of the article

@Philip Cross: Why is it important enough what Corbyn thinks about being described as a conspiracy theorist for that to belong in the lede of the article? I completely disagree. Corbyn is a crank and what he thinks about others describing him as a 'conspiracy theorist' is irrelevant quite frankly - he has proven by his own words and actions that he's a conspiracy theorist, period. By all means keep it in the article in the appropiate section, but I don't think it belongs in the lede of the article. If anything, it gives credence to Corbyn's opinion which quite frankly is barking mad.--OZZY19455 (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to say that I didn't understand the edit summary on NPOV grounds it is necessary to include his denial no matter how lacking in credibility it might appear to have because what is it based on? Credibility actually is what we base whether to include a statement on, and there's no "right of reply" like a news agency has on Wikipedia. The statement is self-evident (When approached for comment ahead of the publication of this article, Mr Corbyn strongly denied that he or any groups he is involved in are conspiracy theorists – this is what would happen 100 times out of 100 unless you got "no comment") and it's not significant if the secondary source evidence is strong enough for us to actually call him a conspiracy theorist in Wikipedia's voice. — Bilorv (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It is true my edit summary ("on NPOV grounds...") came out as scrambled. Editors are supposed to represent all verifiable viewpoints in reliable sources regardless of truth. It does not matter therefore that Piers Corbyn's denial is not going to be taken seriously by the vast majority of readers. The comment risked being applied to all his fringe theories, whereas the source relates only to COVID, which is why I have clarified it. It is known not all readers will read the entirety of Wikipedia articles. Philip Cross (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

:::There are more than enough reliable sources to use to describe Corbyn as a conspiracy theorist and that's all that matters. The fact that he denies being one is irrelevant and is not NPOV because it's Corbyn's POV. If anything, I suggest using the source and moving his denial of being a conspiracy theorist in the denial section and mention his claim that he and the groups he associates with are allegedly putting forward the "scientific truth" and his views about Sky News. Putting Corbyn's opinion in the lede is ridiculous and is not part of Wikipedia's guidelines.--OZZY19455 (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well it would be one thing if he was a conspiracy theorist on one topic but not another, but describing COVID-19 as a "hoax" or the anti-vaxxer stuff is uncontroversially a conspiracy theory. Why should we say "Corbyn claimed [false thing]" and how does that fit WP:FRINGE? — Bilorv (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

::::I remember reading an article in The Guardian about conspiracy theorists and Covid-19 a litle while ago and it pointed out that, "The first rule of any conspiracy-based movement is that nobody wants to be called a conspiracy theorist." Who cares if Corbyn denies being a conspiracy theorist? He's been promoting conspiracy theories for quite a while now, but he has gained publicity in recent times because of the various conspiracy theories he's promoting about Covid-19 and vaccines.--OZZY19455 (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC) strike comments by another sock of User:English Patriot Man Meters (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)