Article treats mainstream consensus as if it were absolutely definitive, even citing a Scientific American “fact check” as proof there was no misconduct. Anyone who reads the document at the bottom of the article can plainly see that this claim is false and misconduct was rampant. Author of this version of the article clearly did not do so. MolecCodicies (talk)
(Molecodicles: don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~ , top left on keyboard, which will then show as your signature.)
Molecodicles, as it says in the Wikispooks FAQ: "The material on the site reflects the interests of our editors... Unlike Wikipedia, which is censored, our omissions result from a simple lack of editors. If you're knowledgeable about a particular topic and wish to share your knowledge for the common good without fear or favour".
I haven't added much on the subject, but agree with you on Climategate. In my opinion, Wikispooks is well suited to highlighting the large errors and omissions in the (Rockefeller-sponsored for decades) official climate narrative. This does not mean excluding the problems inherent in the "other side" (Karl Rove & co, sponsored by other corporate interests), or even that the official narrative on global warming is false.
- Hello Molecodicles, the text is copied, or mostly copied from the top of the Wikipedia article. Sometimes it makes sense to create an article like this here (with the minimum basics) just to give an idea what the topic was/is about. So that the reader won't have to look that up again. In other words to give the reader an overview what the term means fast. But even if time for editing is short, one could mention that the whole issue right away received the usual mainstream media treatment and what that implies ("treatment" like in suppression of information). As for the article as it is, bend it in the right direction if you like, I know very little about those e-mail hacks and don't feel like getting into right now.
- Best is to sign messages with four tildes, which will then add the date of your edit, like this: "~~~~" or like this "-- ~~~~", the 2nd variant improves the readability a little more. -- Sunvalley (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Other option, if one wants to import from Wikipedia to explain the term or topic, is to make an "import reminder" at the bottom. Like here. This will point out to the reader what the article is. If the article is longer, it makes sense to also put a message on top. Like here. If you copy a few lines from Wikipedia and add to that in own writing or from other sources, you may not need to use the reminder. But in this example here, as it is right now, it makes sense already. -- Sunvalley (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip re: signing my comment. If the article is imported from Wikipedia, that certainly explains a lot! Yes there is a lot of interesting info on this topic that is clearly censored by the MSM and Wikipedia, and it would make for a very interesting article to explore this. The article as-is basically constitutes the “official narrative”, effectively a cover up of the scandal. I have no strong opinion on climate science in either direction as I’m not a scientist but this topic “Climategate” in particular demonstrates that there are certainly questions to be asked. Will make time to contribute more to the article in the near future. — MolecCodicies (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)