Talk:The Weather Makers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article creation on an important topic and great book (audiobook). I included a table of contents as I did for a A Short History of Progress as as I feel it is very informative (although that text was orginally a lecture series). It is a good first start at an article and I have read (or listened to) the other works and authors quoted. They are quoted on the website (perhaps also on the back cover - I have no idea). All of theses authors form a common thread and raise common themes. I will return to expand upon the article further but it is a good first start (- one needs say little more than these eminent quoted authors who important works similarly have there own Wikipedia entries -) start to encourage others to continue the work also... Regards, Mattjs 14:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

The article needs wikifying, copy-editing, categorising, stubbing, etc. Most of the article consists of two long (and wrongly italicised) quotations, which should probably simply be removed. As it stands, the article reads like an advert. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure I know... im working on it... feel free to fix the Style stuff as I ad to it... Mattjs 18:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You dont like the table of contents - yeah I guess you are right - I got away with it with A Short History of Progress becuse it was originally a lecture series so it was appropriate there to list the lectures. Mattjs 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey man why cut so deep so quick? Mattjs 19:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a book jacket or a publisher's site; more than 75% of the article was puff. WP:NPOV. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK OK - I am just about to reinsert those quotes but much much edited... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattjs (talk • contribs) 19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Adding pro comments should be balanced by anti comments, or by a citation to show that there wwere no anti comments. Why not write something about the book instead of copying out reviews 9and only reviews judged favourable enough to be put on his website)? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you are right - but the article is a stub and im still resaerching it... also there isnt much if any -ve comment i have foudn yet... Mattjs 19:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok so we can we leave it something like that for now until I come back - it was crucial to me to get these to related authors as wikified link into the article. Mattjs 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like your happy if so then i am too for now... Mattjs 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Better to start with too much rather than to little and whittle it down. It will get better now there is an article there will be visitors too. thanks for you help and you have convince I hace alot of Wiki Style Guide to read... Cheers, Mattjs 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What now Mel? Wasnt puff my friend - scientific consenus surrounding Global Warming is serious... I can drum up alot of support in the Gloabl Warming and Climate Changes pages...? Mattjs 19:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not debating the issue of climate change, but how to write and format an article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The book is about climate change its importance and a summary of largely the scientific consensus of those working in the field. Do you want to take this offline - email or even a phone call, Skype, Yahoo, MSN perhaps we should chat ("voice") and resolve any enmity there may be between us i percieve? Might help just to talk and hear one another - we might actually like one another: heaven forbid!? Mattjs 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss editing issues in public. Here, the issue is a book about climate change, but the question we're concerned with is whether the bulk of the article should be made up of chunks from two reviews. My argument is that it isn't; that's completely independent of the subject of the book — it's a matter of Wikipedia guidelines concerning neutral point of view and the nature of an encyclopædia article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. Its much more than climate change though... All I was trying to achieve - and bear in mind it was my first start on a new article and isnt an article at all reeally but a stub - was include mentions of these two overlapping authors and the works (both of which I have recently read). I had convenient hooks here because they both reviewed or commented publicly on the book the subject of the stub so I put it in sooner rather than later. I guess I can come back when I have much more to say like several paragraphs more and then it will be filled out and can include mention of these two other authors and their comments... maybe an alternative might be to drop the quotes entirely although probably one of them would be good to go stressing the significance, importance and critical aclaim of the book and the authors/and or their works in a See Also? Jared covers Paleoanthropology/paleoarcheology in "Guns, Germs...", Ecology (and Climate change) as well in "Collapse", and Ronald both including Climate Change issues... Guess I will come back when I have really got something to add about Tim Flannery's book which as yet I haven't but I wanted a place holder article as none existed whereas the other two guys books have reasonable coverage... cross referencing authors and books accross the simalr fields and subjects shouldnt be out of order where it makes sense its just as you say there wasnt anything much else in the article yet... you jumoed on me (I was in the middle of editing) and it a bit too soon. Regards, Id just argue that articles have to start getting written however before they get edited out of existence or you never get any article at all! :-) Mattjs

When starting an article, it's often best to write the initial version off-line, and add it when it's ready. Incomplete articles can be speedily deleted (this one could have been if it had been spotted before I got to it, to be honest). Placeholder articles aren't generally allowed (what's the place being held against?).

Why should either of those authors be mentioned here? It's an article about the book; you're drifting towards using it as a springboard for something else, which isn't on. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I will remember that in future. Did you even read the last edit before you deleted it though? It wasnt that far off the mark I thought. Mattjs 23:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)