Alexh19740110 (talk | contribs) →anyway: no |
Alexh19740110 (talk | contribs) Reverted to revision 322244538 by Arthur Rubin; self revert, let others deal with this.... (TW) |
||
Line 828: | Line 828: | ||
:::::::Ahem. Have you actually ''read'' the excerpts in google books. That's "criticism", but it's not based on fact, nor '''claimed''' to be based on facts. It's based, at best, on "guilt by association" (without stating whether there is any basis for the claims of association), and, more likely close to the "has (he) stopped beating his wife" school of "argument". — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
:::::::Ahem. Have you actually ''read'' the excerpts in google books. That's "criticism", but it's not based on fact, nor '''claimed''' to be based on facts. It's based, at best, on "guilt by association" (without stating whether there is any basis for the claims of association), and, more likely close to the "has (he) stopped beating his wife" school of "argument". — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::::::So your position is that [[Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change]] may not be used as a source on the page on grounds that it is too critical and may be [[hate speech]]? Is that correct? [[User:Ratel|<span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄</span>]] 00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::That is not what Arthur said, Ratel. [[User:Alexh19740110|Alex Harvey]] ([[User talk:Alexh19740110|talk]]) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:02, 27 October 2009
![]() | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
|
![]() | Australia Unassessed ![]() ![]() | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
Deletion
This is the author of a book due for worldwide publication in a few weeks. If you delete it now the page will have to be recreated when the hits in gnews start piling up, and they will. ► RATEL ◄ 07:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- It should not be difficult to recreate. I suggest you put a copy in a User/sandbox. Please note the article original contains copyrighted text. My best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
repetition of unfounded insinuation not in Wikipedia style
I would like to comment on the source for article's statement that "Paltridge accepted money from the oil industry (also known as Big Oil) via the industry-funded nonprofit the Natural Resources Stewardship Project [7]". The citation [7] refers to the title "84 of Imhofe's Global Warming Deniers Have Taken Industry Money". This latter is the headline of an article in The Daily Green. This latter article lists Paltridge as a signer of an open letter to the U.N. that was said to be connected with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. This connection is the only link that could be thought to be the source of the Wikipedia article's statement that Paltridge accepted money from the oil industry, but it is clear that such a sourcing is not valid, because it shows no evidence that Paltridge accepted money from anyone. The statement that Paltridge accepted money from the oil industry is no more than an unfounded insinuation created by the headline in The Daily Green; consequently it should be removed from the Wikipedia article on Paltridge.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Let's look at this. He's a member of the NRSP, which is industry-funded and funds sympathetic scientists, right? Do you accept that? ► RATEL ◄ 06:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I have emailed Paltridge and he writes that he has no knowledge of the NRSP. From what is common knowledge, though perhaps the NRSP is said to have solicited signatures for the letter to the U.N., we have no reason to suppose that signers of the letter were members of the NRSP. We must say that as far as we know, Paltridge is not a member of the NRSP.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, no, he was listed as an allied expert at their website recently; I saw the page myself. It is now gone, strangely. One is reminded of cockroaches running from the light. I'd support a change of wording to "Paltridge was listed as an "allied expert" by the industry-funded nonprofit, the Natural Resources Stewardship Project." (BTW, your emails from Paltridge carry no weight here, and you are not supposed to edit the page if you know him in any way due to WP:COI). ► RATEL ◄ 09:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It is a unilateral thing that the NRSP is claiming that Paltridge is an allied expert, perhaps because he is said to have signed the letter for which they solicited signatures. But membership must be voluntary and they could not make him a member without his agreement. It seems from his email to me that there is no such agreement, nor even a request for agreement. The signing of the open letter to the U.N. would not make him a member. One can see why the NRSP might want to claim that Paltridge is an allied expert, because Paltridge is a good scientist, but that does not make him a member of the NRSP in any natural sense of the words, and the NRSP is not claiming that he is a member as you claim. Only Paltridge can decide whether he consents to being a member or not. What is the acceptable and effective way that you, or anyone else, as an editor of Wikipedia, can verify from Paltridge whether he consents to being a member as you claim? You write "One is reminded of cockroaches running from the light." Writing that, you are likening Paltridge to a cockroach. Do you have verifiable reasons for that? If so, please list them here.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I repeat, your emails mean nothing here. Do not raise them again. See WP:OR. ► RATEL ◄ 02:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You have not replied to my question about whether you have verifiable reasons for your likening of Paltridge to a cockroach. You have responded by inserting a repetition of a claim by an industry-funded nonprofit source that Paltridge is "allied" to that source; an alliance is voluntary and requires consent on both sides; neither you nor they have evidence that Paltridge consented to such an 'alliance'; your reason for your claim is that "he was listed as an allied expert at their website recently; I saw the page myself. It is now gone, strangely."; that means that your insertion rests on your own unverifiable internet 'research'. As far as is verifiable, for all we know, the reason why the list is now gone is that the authors discovered it was false. Your insertion of that repetition of that claim is unverifiable; therefore your inserted repetition of the claim should be deleted. I repeat my question: do you have verifiable reasons for your likening of Paltridge to a cockroach? If so, please list them here.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Ratel, you have labelled your new editorial insertion a compromise, but in reality it is no compromise, but instead is a doubling of your offence of making unverifiable claims, because it adds an unverifiable claim about an alliance while still continuing to cite the unfounded insinuation by The Daily Green. And still you have not replied to my question about whether you have verifiable reasons for your likening of Paltridge to a cockroach. If you have such reasons, please list them here.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was referring to the organisation when I said cockroach, obviously. I saw the allied expert page when I followed the claim source from another site, sourcewatch, so it's not OR and you clearly do not understand what OR means.► RATEL ◄ 12:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Ratel, it was not obvious that you were referring to only the organization when you wrote about cockroaches: the article is about Paltridge. Your new insertion into the Wikipedia article alleges that Paltridge is allied with an organization that, in your discussion note, you liken to a cockroach. Your only 'verification' of this allegation is your claim that Paltridge "was listed as an allied expert at their website recently; I saw the page myself. It is now gone, strangely."; an alliance is two-way; you have no verification that Paltridge, on his side, consented to any such 'alliance'; you offer no reason why the 'strange' removal might not have been because its authors discovered it was false. Your Wikipedia article reference, instead of citing your claim "I saw the page myself" which is the actual source of your unverifiable allegation, cites inaccurately a repetition the hearsay of The Daily Green which is merely unfounded insinuation. Yes, I was politely and perhaps gratuitously dignifying your internet adventures as 'research', in single quote marks.
At the real foundation of this, there is a verifiable basis for a statement in the Wikipedia article as follows: 'The National Post has Paltridge listed (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004) as one of some 100 signers of an open letter to the U.N. (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002) that was headed "Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction".' When one checks SourceWatch, one notes that these National Post articles are the real foundation of your references to the NRSP, but they are not a basis to link Paltridge with the NRSP, nor are they a reason to recite the hearsay unfounded insinuation by The Daily Green. How would you feel about simply going with the verifiable basis in the National Post?Chjoaygame (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- The web archive proves Paltridge was listed by the NRSP. I'm inclined to leave the page as is. ► RATEL ◄ 15:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You do not have the necessary verification that Paltridge consented to being included in the now-removed list as an 'ally' by the NRSP, nor an explanation of why they "strangely" removed the list, which might have been because they discovered it was inaccurate, likely for reasons such as non-consent by Paltridge. The page reference of your new insertion in the article does not cite the archive source you name here: (http://web.archive.org/web/20071202095654/www.nrsp.com/people.html); instead the page reference irrelevantly cites a hearsay repetition of an insinuation by The Daily Green. This insinuation is unfounded, and in the article, your new insertion citing it purports to link Paltridge with an organization that you liken here to a cockroach. You continue to intend to link Paltridge with a cockroach, using an irrelevant citation to do so, relying on a now-removed and likely inaccurate list. You are making an unverified personal attack on Paltridge. Why?Chjoaygame (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- My feeling about the organisation have nothing to do with the page and I suggest you cease discussing them. the fact is that he was listed on their website for a long time, and that was reported elsewhere. So we have primary and secondary evidence of the fact. Now the whole NRSP website has gone, not just the page that lists Palt., so concluding that the site is down bec. of Palt is absurd. The org. is now defunct, by the looks of it. However, it was run by well known individuals like Timothy Ball and Tom Harris who would hardly be expected to make up lists of allied experts. They are legally liable if they do that. Palt. should come out in public to dissociate himself, and he never did. Paltridge was also listed on this page. ► RATEL ◄ 01:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The reference "Senator James Inhofe (2008). "84 of Inhofe's Global Warming Deniers Have Taken Industry Money". The Daily Green. Retrieved 2009-07-31. {{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)" is an unfounded insinuation that Paltridge has accepted money from big oil and should be removed.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Changed the link in the ref to link to a page at thedailygreen that lists Paltridge without saying he was paid. ► RATEL ◄ 00:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on the NRSP has no mention of Big Oil funding, though it examines evidence about funding. The SourceWatch article on the NRSP has no mention of Big Oil funding, though it examines evidence about funding. The Daily Green article that links Paltridge to the NRSP has, as its only source for the funding story in relation to Paltridge, the SourceWatch article on the NRSP. In the Wikipedia article on Paltridge, the newly inserted clause "which has funding links to Big Oil" meaning that the Natural Resources Stewardship Project has funding links to Big Oil, therefore has no Wikipedia acceptable verification and no evidential support. The clause "which has funding links to Big Oil" and its reference to The Daily Green should be removed.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
DrProbability, thank you for your valuable guidance to the Wikipedia article on the Law of Maximum Entropy Production.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia article on Garth Paltridge, the reference currently numbered 7 (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-industry-money-46011008?link=rel&dom=yah_green&src=syn&con=art&mag=tdg |title=84 of Inhofe's Global Warming Deniers Have Taken Industry Money |accessdate=2009-07-31 |publisher=The Daily Green |author=Senator James Inhofe |year=2008 |month=October) to The Daily Green, lacking Wikipedia acceptable verification, unnecessarily introduces concerns about funding by Big Oil that are not relevant to the Garth Paltridge article. It should be removed.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you have evidence that thedailygreen.com is an unreliable source, you should take it and get opinions at the RS noticeboard. ► RATEL ◄ 03:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not a matter for me at this point to assess the reliability of The Daily Green, but rather I am specifically concerned with how it is being used in this reference. In this reference, The Daily Green is being used to insinuate that Paltridge is unreliable, and this is not what the reference is about; the reference is about whether Paltridge was listed by the NRSP, and the evidence that you have presented from the web archive is the verification of that; the reference to The Daily Green does not add anything to that that is relevant to the present point; the reference to The Daily Planet is being used here to gratuitously introduce an unfounded insinuation. It should be removed.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, we need more than archived pages of the nrsp site to prove the link between GP and the org, and this is an independent source. It does say that GP is linked to the NRSP, which is correct, and also says that the NRSP was industry funded, which may or may not be correct (the founders will not say). It does not say that the NRSP funded GP in the sourced page given. I see no BLP problems. If you can find another RS that links GP and the NRSP, we can replace this source. ► RATEL ◄ 06:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have raised discussion of the Daily Green at RS/N. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
reference to Swenson's Law of maximum entropy production
From this article about Paltridge, I have removed the reference to the Wikipedia article about Swenson's Law of maximum entropy production because the latter has no reference to Paltridge's work.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Paltridge: what is he known for?
Obviously, Paltridge was a well known climate scientist before he recently "came out" and declared himself an AGW skeptic. In the 1970s he published a number of papers arguing that the earth atmosphere is in a state of "minimum entropy exchange". There are some google hits on this here. Recent observations suggest that he is right, or on the right track, and that the atmospheres of other planets, e.g. Titan, Venus, are in similar states. Thus, Paltridge has contributed importantly to mankind's knowledge of the atmosphere. So it seems to me that Ratel is getting confused between what he knows Paltridge for ("outspoken views on AGW") and what others know him for. I have changed this back. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see, what is more notable: 2 papers published in the 1970s that virtually disappeared without trace or Paltridge's well known skepticism about AGW that includes a book, Youtube videos, and a mulitude of web hits? Beep, this is a no-brainer. ► RATEL ◄ 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ratel, you need to stop for a little while and do just a little bit of reading about the subject. To get you started, here is a well known review paper on the history of the maximum entropy hypothesis.
- Ozawa, H., A. Ohmura, R. D. Lorenz, and T. Pujol 2003: The second law of thermodynamics and the global climate system: A review of the maximum entropy production principle, Rev. Geophys., 41(4), 1018, doi:10.1029/2002RG000113, 2003.
- You'll see that the whole thing started with Paltridge's theory, and that he's published numerous papers (have you considered looking at google scholar?). For instance the review paper cites five Paltridge papers:
- Paltridge, G. W., Global dynamics and climate––A system of minimum entropy exchange, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 101, 475–484, 1975.
- Paltridge, G. W., The steady-state format of global climate, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 104, 927–945, 1978.
- Paltridge, G. W., Climate and thermodynamic systems of maximum dissipation, Nature, 279, 630–631, 1979.
- Paltridge, G. W., Thermodynamic dissipation and the global climate system, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 107, 531–547, 1981.
- Paltridge, G. W., A physical basis for a maximum of thermodynamic dissipation of the climate system, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 127, 305–313, 2001.
- Paltridge's hypothesis set off an entire programme of research -- an entire branch of climate science -- into which many papers are published every year. His original paper is cited 105 times on google scholar.
- Please do the right thing and restore my edits. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Help me out here. If your claim carries any weight, then why is he not mentioned anywhere on Principle of maximum entropy or Law of maximum entropy production or indeed here http://www.lawofmaximumentropyproduction.com/ etc etc? ► RATEL ◄ 04:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because you are looking at different theories that just happen to have a similar sounding names. The Swenson article is about application of a different principle of maximum entropy (note it says nothing about any application to the climate system). There are many principles of maximum/minimum entropy in different areas, maybe fifty or more.
- Here is a presentation by a Steven Mobbs of NCAR, Is the Climate System at a Maximum of the Entropy Production?. See that the theory originated with Paltridge in 1975, 1979. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Even if he is known in academic circles for being part of this theory, the question still remains: what is he best known for? While a small handful of scientists may know of him for this reason, thousands know about him for his many forays into the public debate on climate change, where he's appeared on radio and television, newspaper interviews, newspaper articles authored by himself, and now a book. It is a matter of judgement as to what he is best known for. From my POV, since I am a logical fellow, I choose his stance on AGW as his most notable feature. If you disagree, go to RfC. ► RATEL ◄ 05:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- We should not need dispute resolution for something like this. Have a look at how the "known for" field is used in other cases: James Hansen, Kevin E. Trenberth, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Edward Norton Lorenz, i.e. always to indicate their contributions to knowledge, not their stance on global warming, and not what they're known for to the lay person in the popular press or the Daily Green. Then look at the documentation here: Template:Infobox_Scientist and see that it says known_for is to be used to indicate "Key topics/areas of study in which the scientist notable." Alex Harvey (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Even if he is known in academic circles for being part of this theory, the question still remains: what is he best known for? While a small handful of scientists may know of him for this reason, thousands know about him for his many forays into the public debate on climate change, where he's appeared on radio and television, newspaper interviews, newspaper articles authored by himself, and now a book. It is a matter of judgement as to what he is best known for. From my POV, since I am a logical fellow, I choose his stance on AGW as his most notable feature. If you disagree, go to RfC. ► RATEL ◄ 05:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be happy with a compromise where both items are noted in the known for slot. How about it? ► RATEL ◄ 08:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well I cannot see any precedent or justification for referring to his climate change skepticism in the infobox but in the interests of getting on with things I could live with it (unless another editor also objects). However, "outspoken views" includes an editorial judgement and is definitely contrary to policy (see Avoid editorial opinion). It begs the question, "how outspoken is 'outspoken' here?" In my opinion, "outspoken" is what Joe Romm is, with his climate progress blog that is updated daily. Paltridge is in contrast rather quiet. So if you changed it to "known for: maximum entropy production (MEP) hypothesis, climate change skepticism" I'll accept the compromise.
- It's not accurate, though. His book, Climate Caper, is about the corruption of science, not climate change skepticism. Paltridge's view is that he really doesn't pretend to know what the future holds for climate change, but that he's doubtful climate sensitivity is really anything much more than 2xCO2=1 C or so, and that even if it was 3 C he's not convinced that would be a big problem. You'll note in the pages below, that where Paltridge has taken a definite point of view is on the issue of sea level rise. There, I think, he would definitely say, "No, Antarctica is NOT going to melt, however much the earth warms, and sea levels are NOT going to rise dangerously." Indeed, it would probably be much better to refer to his work on Antarctica in the "known for" box. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
some reliable sources for Paltridge
In order to help balance this article away from Climate Caper, Paltridge's post-retirement work on the state of science in Australia, and onto his actual work during his career as a scientist I have found some reliable sources:
- Too many science PhDs?, Radio National - Counterpoint, 2005.
- Adaptation the key to surviving climate change, scientists say, ABC news online, 2005.
- Antarctic Ice Sheet, ABC Earthbeat, 2000.
- Doomsday roadshow, Lateline, 2001.
- Limited sea rises expected, BBC, 2000.
- Complex systems: Order out of chaos, Nature online, 2005.
- The torpedo is not for turning, New Scientist, 1993.
- A cold, hard look at a hot topic, Sydney Morning Herald, 2005.
- Adaptation the key to surviving climate change, scientists say, ABC news online, 2005.
- Scientists move to lessen global warming, ABC news online, 2001.
- Greenhouse sea levels exaggerated, ABC news in science, 2000.
- A short primer on climate change and the greenhouse issue, online opinion editor, 2001 -- good article for obtaining Professor Paltridge's actual view on climate change.
- Unlike Kyoto, this climate deal suits us fine, online opinion editor, 2005 (Paltridge mentioned for his view on uncertainty of climate change.)
- I suggest you start a new section that covers this data. ► RATEL ◄ 12:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
issue with lead
The lead currently includes a sentence: "Paltridge believes that athropogenic global warming is real, but not significant.[1]" This is not however an accurate summary of the source, which reads in full:
In one limited sense the members of the "do something about global warming" lobby are correct. If humans insist on giving the atmosphere an extra dose of carbon dioxide, then indeed one can expect Earth’s surface temperature to rise. To be strictly accurate, we should say that its temperature will be higher than it would have been otherwise. Either way, it doesn’t take a lot of physical knowledge and insight to accept the statement. It is rather the equivalent of saying that if one hits something with a bat then that something will respond. So it is true, as the lobby delights in telling us at every opportunity, that there is no longer much argument among scientists about the existence of the greenhouse global warming phenomenon. There never was.
The consensus goes no further down the chain of political correctness than this. It is rather naughty of the greenhouse lobby either to say outright, or to imply by judicious omission, that it does.
It has not been solidly established, and it is certainly not accepted by the majority of scientists as proven fact, that global warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will be large enough to be seriously noticeable - let alone large enough to be disastrous. Imagine the response of a well-bedded concrete post when belted by a relatively small bat. In a situation where the post has been around a long time and has in the past survived the beatings of lots of much bigger bats, the chances are that it won’t move much. (emphasis added)
I suggest we move this to the "climate change skepticism" section, and then accurately summarise the source. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- How would you précis that bolded text other than the way I have? ► RATEL ◄ 12:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- The trouble with the present wording is that it has simplified the original such that the paraphrase can be interpreted in ways that the original can't. For instance, one could interpret the paraphrase as meaning "Paltridge believes that the earth is probably going to warm 3-5 C by 2100 but he doesn't think that's a big deal." Clearly, this interpretation is inconsistent with the source, but not with the paraphrase. It's also ambiguous: what exactly is meant by "global warming" here -- warming that occurred 1976-1998? Warming that will occur by 2100? Something like the following would be okay: "Whilst it is Paltridge's view that there is a consensus amongst scientists that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide must lead to some small amount of warming, he argues that there is no agreement on how much warming will occur. His view is that the warming would probably be barely noticeable."
- The present wording "will probably be barely noticeable" focuses on the feeling not the scientific base for it. A more accurate precis, if one is set on precis to this extent, would focus on the science, and might read: "will probably be too small to be a threat".Chjoaygame (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
words to avoid
The article makes uses of a number of biasing words, e.g. Paltridge "claims" X is used seven times in the article. This contradicts the editing policy, see WP:CLAIM and WP:Words to avoid. Guidelines for rewriting this are given therein:
While the word "claim" may be used appropriately, it can also be misused to cast doubt on an assertion. Editors should avoid this improper usage and instead choose a neutral alternative.
- Dubious: "Politician Jones has come under fire for his use of racial slurs in a prior career. Jones issued a statement in which he claims that he is not a racist." [A fact followed by a "claim" leaves readers inclined to believe the fact and disbelieve the claim.]
- Instead: "Jones said in a statement, 'I am not and have never been a racist.'"
Likewise the article makes use of a lot of scare quotes and this should be changed as well.
Any objections? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Go ahead and make changes on those issues, but remember that a lot of quotes are there to indicate that these are his exact words. Don't lose that. ► RATEL ◄ 05:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
sourcewatch.org RS?
I doubt there's any way that sourcewatch can be considered an RS. It's more or less the same as Wikipedia -- i.e. volunteers write in and update it. Thus we would have to drop this stuff about ExxonMobil from the footnote simply because there's no reliable sources giving. Even if it didn't fail WP:WEIGHT, it still can't be included. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Removed SW, even though it was used as a src for the conference sponsors and not GP. The sponsorship by Exxon is not in doubt, see new src. ► RATEL ◄ 07:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, but the problem is now, none of your sources are actually trying to insinuate that Paltridge himself has any relationship with Exxon. Whilst one of the sources has suggested that others insinuate that since Exxon donated money to the APEC Study Centre that organisation itself is somehow fouled, none of the sources have said anything about Paltridge. Thus this is WP:SYN. It needs to be removed. You can't use Wikipedia to make insinuations against the good character of living people. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Our page does not make the insinuation either. We merely mention that he made a major public speech at an industry-funded event. This is not secret knowledge and not SYN. You're being a little over-sensitive and paranoid. ► RATEL ◄ 01:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
conspiracy theory?
It is useful to distinguish between the notions of a conspiracy and of a movement and of a group delusion and of a vulgar error. The distinction is that conspiracy is defined to be secret and perhaps more or less criminal; a movement is more or less cooperative but in general not secret; a group delusion is a mistaken belief held by a more or less mutually communicating group of individuals; a vulgar error is an error that is widely followed. The belief that man-made CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming is widespread, more or less cooperative, and not secret; its validity is debated. Desire for world government is widespread, more or less cooperative, and not secret; its admirability is a matter of taste. Socialism (desire for wealth transfer) is widespread, more or less cooperative, and not secret; its admirability is a complicated question and a matter of taste. Manipulation of research funding sources is widespread, more or less cooperative, and perhaps more or less secret and perhaps more or less criminal; its admirability is a matter of taste. Concern about the possibility of man-made CO2 emissions causing dangerous global warming is a political reality; it is rare that political reality is entirely free of conspiracy, but the usual rule applies here: when wanting to decide between conspiracy and incompetence, remember that incompetence is very widespread, and few can keep a secret.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your writing style and edit history (which includes this page and pages on MEP, Paltridge's pet subject) makes me suspect you may be the subject of the page. If so, please review WP:COI and consider not editing here. If you are not Paltridge, feel free to say so. ► RATEL ◄ 01:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ratel, I can assure you that I am not Paltridge. I am interested in the principle of maximum entropy production because I am interested in atmospheric energy transfer. As you know, the principle of maximum entropy production was introduced to atmospheric energy transport studies by Paltridge. That is how I learnt of his work. I am still studying the principle, trying to understand its physical meaning and how to apply it. It is no simple thing.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine then. I only asked because of your editing history and writing style. ► RATEL ◄ 11:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- It would be more interesting for someone to respond to Chjoaygame's point, which I believe is quite valid.
- From conspiracy theory: "Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", rather than broad social forces and large structures of human collectivities."
- Further: "The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy."
- Paltridge's view doesn't include a "secret plot", but rather involves opportunists the world over, all going along with a "consensus" for their own independent reasons. In most cases, these reasons include a real belief that there is a greenhouse gas problem. Further, there are no actual conspirators. Paltridge has not suggested that the IPCC hatched a secret plot to defraud the world -- that's not how it works either. What Paltridge is proposing fits much better inside "broad social forces and large structures of human collectivities" than in "secret plots" and "conspirators". Finally, the pejorative and dismissive aspect of referring to someone as a "conspiracy theorist" needs to be noted.
- For these reasons along with the fact that no attempt has been made in this article to satisfy WP:V -- of the utmost importance in a BLP -- this link needs to be removed. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- The points GP makes in his book are classic global warming conspiracy theory fodder. The see also link will stay. Suggest you RfC this point. It is not a BLP issue. ► RATEL ◄ 05:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Lavoisier Group
I note a fact tag has been added beside this. Can someone show me a source where Paltridge is shown to be a member of the Lavoiser Group? Thanks.
- No response here, I have removed the text from the article. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
And you waited for response for how many minutes? Start acting co-operatively or face total opposition to everything you are doing here. ► RATEL ◄ 05:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I waited for a few days. It's not too late to find reliable sources, if you are serious about this. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ratel, your threat of "total opposition to everything you are doing here" is wildly inappropriate. I don't care who's right or wrong here, your attitude is degenerating very quickly. UnitAnode 05:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
article should be broken in two
I believe as is the case with all of these sorts of bios, we need one page for Paltridge and another page for his book. Any objections? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ratel states on my talk page that the article needs to be here as a result of not being mentioned enough in reliable sources. I suspect this is a temporary issue, as the book was only published a month ago. I'll collect some reviews of the book here:
- The Climate Caper, Quadrant Magazine Online, favourable review by John Izzard.
- Accomplices in deceit, Quadrant Magazine Online, favourable review Hugh Morgan.
- ABC News Piece, audio only, Michael Duffy and Paul Comrie-Thomson.
- Global warming hotheads freeze out science's sceptics, The Australian, Christopher Pearson, favourable op-ed / review by right-wing columnist.
- The Climate Caper, favourable review by Melbourne bookseller, Readings.com.au.
- I guess there aren't many sources available yet but I suspect this will change. I still think it is better to either remove the discussion of the book altogether from Paltridge's bio if it fails WP:NOTE or create in a separate page. This is skewing Paltridge's biography to a book review that hasn't had time to obtain WP:NOTE in its own right. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I tried to make a separate article of the book but it was deleted ► RATEL ◄ 05:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think the fact it got deleted might have had anything to do with the fact that you created the page before the book had actually been published? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
BLP/N take two
I have raised Ratel's rather large revert to the BLP/N. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I said in the edit summary, you are making sweeping deletions of cited material with no discussion in a very high-handed manner. This is not co-operative editing in the spirit of a community encyclopedia. Take a deep breath and calm down. Start working with me, not against me. ► RATEL ◄ 05:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your last edit summary suggests you should "calm down" as well. Threatening to edit war is never a good thing. UnitAnode 05:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ratel, deletions of what material?
- You mean the launch section that is already repeated in the article verbatim above?
- Do you mean the following paragraph? (where you have (1) distorted the sources to say something completely different to Paltridge; (2) made extensive use of scare quotes; (3) extensively editorialised (what is the "familiar sceptic argument" -- I assume you mean "familiar to Ratel"? see policy on WP:Words to avoid#do not editorialize):
In his book, Paltridge states that there is "no longer much argument among scientists about the existence of the greenhouse global warming phenomenon", and never was.[1] However, he posits, the effect may not be large enough to be seriously noticeable, let alone large enough to be disastrous. Paltridge differs from many climate scientists who argue that taking no action to mitigate climate change is "inexcusable".[18] Rather, Paltridge states that humanity should trust in "luck", saying that the coming changes are "inherently unpredictable" and that "in 50 or a 100 years the forecasts of doom will have been tested and, with any luck, proved wrong". He goes on to make the familiar sceptic arguments of a "religion" amongst scientists, who all conform to the theory that warming will be disastrous because of "political correctness", that administrators of science research faculties "have little real knowledge of science, and are ... subject to the necessities of political correctness". He states that "many of them have been appointed to their position precisely because of their 'feel' for the views and needs of the community rather than their 'feel' for science".[1] Paltridge also cites "the need to eat", the need to publish and get grants, a mistaken belief in "the need to preserve the world’s fossil fuels, or to a belief in the need for global government, or perhaps to a vision of forced transfer of resources from rich nations to the poor" as reason behind the consensus on global warming amongst the world's scientists. He also points to what he sees as a need amongst scientists to restore their "pride" by being associated with "an international program [that] has high and popular moral purpose". The bottom line, Patridge states, is that "the money lies on that side of the fence".[1]
- Or do you mean the "political affiliations" section, where this has nothing whatever to do with political affiliations, and you haven't found a single reliable source for any of it? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Consistency please
I haven't read the book, and don't intend to, but can we aim for consistency. The intro sez The Climate Caper. Paltridge believes that while athropogenic (sic) global warming is real but in the book section it sez It argues against the scientific consensus on climate change, and rejects the view that global warming is "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations". The defn of AGW being "real" is that the recent warming is caused by anthro GHG inc. If people who *have* read the book can't agree on what position he does take, then we need to say that instead William M. Connolley (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Alex preferred reverting to talking here, which is regrettable. His solution to the consistency problem appears to be to ignore one of the statements [1]. This is unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- William, I didn't see your talk comment, actually... Your edit summary here -- "ok, I can make no sense of it; someone who likes him can try" -- implied that your edit wasn't made in good faith, but was intended rather to provoke other Wikipedians (i.e. me, I suppose). I'll leave you to ponder on how appropriate it is for a senior editor to make use of a distinguished professor's biography in this way.
- Meanwhile, the problem you've identified seems to lie in the present careless wording of the article, rather than in any inherent contradictions in Paltridge's thinking. That is, I don't believe that either statement accurately presents Paltridge's view. (The article's author, Ratel, I believe shares your advertised level of interest in actually understanding the subject's views).
- Therefore, I think a good compromise would be simply to remove both sentences from the lead. Would that be okay? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I should know better than to attempt humour with you. Ah well. I don't understand why you've removed both sentences whilst leaving the second in the text. If it is false in the lede its false in the text. As I said: I haven't read the book (I assume you have, because you seem happy to make assertions about what he believes) so perhaps you can fix this up William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
retired?
Given that Paltridge still holds the position of Visiting Fellow at the School of Biology, ANU, he's not technically "retired" -- even if he is simultaneously holding an Emeritus Professor position at the University of Tasmania. Correct? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not really. I don't know his specific case, but "Visting Fellow" is not a paid position - it gives you some formal standing in the university, and allows you to access the university's resources. I've been a visiting fellow when I was technically at a different university, and those I know who retired and were made visiting fellows did so in order to access the library, network, and other tools they needed so they could continue to research post retirement. "Emeritus" is a title normally bestowed upon retirement. It allows the professor to continue to claim the "professor" title, which is valuable in establishing their authority in publications and similar. Some Emeritus Professors may still give lectures and perform duties at the university, but generally that's more of a "I want to stay involved in the university after retirement" thing. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but I feel that "retired" is being used pejoratively here. It appears to me that Professors Emeritus are generally referred to in Wikipedia as such, and not as "retired" scientists. E.g. Don E. Schultz, Richard A. Falk, George C. Williams (the three top ranking Professors Emeritus on Google). Alex Harvey (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
MEP
Re In terms of scientific impact, his most significant contribution has been to show that the earth/atmosphere climate system may have adopted a configuration that maximises its rate of thermodynamic dissipation, i.e. entropy production. This suggests a governing constraint by a principle of maximum rate of entropy production (MEP). According to this principle, prediction of the broad-scale steady-state distribution of cloud, temperature and energy flows in the ocean and atmosphere might be possible without a complete description of all variables in climate system - I'm dubious. Who says this was (a) his most sig contrib and (b) a sig contrib? Google scholar, for example, gives 4* as many cites to a radiative processes work [2] and nearly as many to a grassland dryness thing. I'm dubious that MEP is accepted by many William M. Connolley (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- This italicized comment was previously in the article in the following form: "In terms of purely scientific impact, perhaps his most significant achievement was to show that the earth/atmosphere climate system has adopted format which maximizes the rate of its thermodynamic dissipation (i.e. its rate of entropy production). This suggests a governing constraint by a Principle of Maximum Rate of Entropy Production (see Non-equilibrium thermodynamics). It may allow prediction of the broad-scale steady-state distribution of cloud, of temperature and of the energy flows in the ocean and atmosphere when one has sufficient data about the system for that purpose, but does not have fully detailed data about every variable of the system."
- The word "purely" was there for a reason. The purely scientific importance of the principle of maximum entropy production is comparable with the purely scientific importance of the second law of thermodynamics. Strictly speaking, for real physical systems, there is a reasonable argumentative case that the second law refers only to systems in thermodynamic equilibrium, which practically never occur in nature, and are practically always laboratory artefacts. One wants to feel that the idea of the second law applies more widely, but just how much more widely is a hard question, which has exercised some very good minds. It is fair to say that this is a purely scientific question.
- The word "perhaps" was there for a reason. It was written in the context of the presence of the word "purely". Purely scientific importance will always be a matter of taste and opinion.
- Paltridge established something that bids fair to be called an empirical fact. Ozawa Ohmura Lorenz Pujol 2003 [5]are of the opinion that "Later on, several researchers investigated Paltridge's work and obtained essentially the same result [Grassl, 1981; Shutts, 1981; Mobbs, 1982; Noda and Tokioka, 1983; Sohn and Smith, 1993, 1994; Ozawa and Ohmura, 1997; Pujol and Llebot, 1999a, 1999b]." Martyushev and Seleznev 2006 (Martyushev, L.M., Seleznev, V.D. (2006). Maximum entropy production principle in physics, chemistry and biology, Physics Reports 426: 1-45) also list "[87] H.-W. Ou, J. Climate 14 (2001) 2976. [88] A. Kleidon, K. Fraedrich, T. Kunz, F. Lunkeit, Geophys. Res. Lett. 30 (23) (2003) 2223."
- The comment in the article is deliberately not speculating on the further question of just precisely why this fact should be so. That further question is exercising some very good minds, but is not the focus of the present comment.
- The clause "when one has sufficient data about the system for that purpose" was there for a reason. The potential unwarned and unwary reader might risk being seduced by the mistake of thinking that the principle of maximum entropy production could somehow manufacture information not present in the data at hand, the very opposite of the right interpretation of the principle. I think it useful to warn such a potential reader, with the emphasis provided by the clause.
- If one is not quite happy with the words "adopted a format" which Paltridge used in his paper, the perhaps the following would be an improvement on the previous wording: In terms of purely scientific impact, perhaps his most significant achievement was to show that the earth/atmosphere climate system has evolved a dynamical structure which maximizes the rate of its thermodynamic dissipation (i.e. its rate of entropy production). This suggests a governing constraint by a Principle of Maximum Rate of Entropy Production (see Non-equilibrium thermodynamics). It may allow prediction of the broad-scale steady-state distribution of cloud, of temperature and of the energy flows in the ocean and atmosphere when one has sufficient data about the system for that purpose, but does not have fully detailed data about every variable of the system.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- A previous edit replaced the reference to the article on "the Law of Maximum Entropy Production for a good reason: it does not refer to Paltridge's work. That article is in limbo at present, because it is largely written to propagate the work of Swenson, which is an unsafe point of view. The article on Non-equilibrium thermodynamics, on the other hand, does have reference to Paltridge's work and has a neutral point of view.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- The reason I reworded this paragraph was largely as a concession to those who would certainly object sooner or later to Paltridge's MEP principle being presented as fact or near-fact. It may indeed "bid fair" as you put it to empirical fact, but the proposed wording here, "...his most significant achievement was to show that the earth/atmosphere climate system has evolved a dynamical structure which maximizes the rate of its thermodynamic dissipation", implies more than fair bid, but that it has been actually accepted as fact, and as William has said, I don't think this is true. The Ozawa et al. 2003 review paper makes it clear that some haven't accepted the proposition (para 5: "The hypothesis of the maximum entropy production (MEP) thus far seems to have been dismissed by some as coincidence."). Paltridge himself admits in his own review paper that there are those who still won't accept the result (Abstract: "The tale discusses a number of reasons why the principle took so long -- and indeed is still taking so long -- to become generally acceptable and reasonably respectable.")
- Regarding "purely" and "perhaps" I believe that both would be disallowed under the guideline to avoid weasel words. I can't see any linguistic difference between "scientific impact" and "pure scientific impact" in this context. And I must apologise that I can't follow your fuller explanation above as to why you believe that "purely" is needed here. On "perhaps", this is communicating editorial uncertainty and I don't think that's allowed either. All said, though, I don't strongly oppose inclusion of either of these words; I just suspect that others will.
- Regarding "adopted a format" and "when one has sufficient data...", I've changed it back. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) William above, you're not comparing apples with apples when comparing cites for his textbook with cites for his original entropy paper. So regarding "significant", I don't believe this is used as a WP:PEACOCK term; we're not asserting any level of absolute significance for his work, just relative significance. We are saying that of his own publications, the MEP papers have been the most significant as evidenced by their number of citations. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
@C: I've seen Ozawa Ohmura Lorenz Pujol. And I'm not familiar with MEP, alone of in atmospheric phsyics. But I do know it isn't widely used in atmospheric physics. Comparing the impact of GPs work to the 2nd law isn't reasonable. Saying it is his "most sig" scientific work definintely implies that is it sig; and I'm not at all sure that it is. @AH: don't understand your objection to comparing cites William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- A fact in an exact science is always probable and approximate, never perfectly certain and exact; the mark of an exact science is that it should try to clarify just how probable and just how approximate. I repeat that, for a scientist, by the usual scientific criteria of fact, what Paltridge showed is fact; there is a good supply of literature confirmation of this, better than many other facts. The problematics lie in the interpretation of the fact. What does the fact mean in general theoretical terms? There is plenty of thought about that, but it will not alter the fact.
- The rate of dissipation of energy is not in principle by definition or by general empirical finding identical with the rate of entropy production in general, though under some circumstances they can stand in the ratio 2:1 with adjustment for units. In general the relation between them is not simple to understand. The original 1975 paper wrote of entropy exchange, and this is not identical with entropy production, though of course it is closely related. The Nature 1979 paper wrote of the dissipation function and this is not identical with entropy production. It may be wise not to write that they are the same, as in "rate of thermodynamic dissipation, i.e. entropy production". It may be wise simply to delete the words "i.e. entropy production".Chjoaygame (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I repeat that, for a scientist, by the usual scientific criteria of fact, what Paltridge showed is fact - I don't know why you're repeating it; it doesn't make it any more true. The refs in literature to this are in fact rather thin; they point to the principle *not* being used in general William M. Connolley (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) If I may, I don't really think inclusion or exclusion of the word "significant" is worth arguing over. By appeal to WP:PEACOCK there is probably justification for not using the word. Perhaps a better solution would be simply to create a section "Entropy" or "Principle of maximum rate of entropy production (MEP)" and properly describe the describe the theory there, without any value judgements about significance. Would anyone object to this? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Such pages already exist. It would create even more confusion to re-create them. One of them is subject to concerns about point of view, which are being considered.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I mean a section in Paltridge's biography to describe his original theory and contributions to the MEP debate. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, now I see you meant a section within the Garth Paltridge page. Still, I think it is enough to link to the page on Non-equilibrium thermodynamics and not go into the matter on the Garth Paltridge page; it is too detailed and technical. Who would write the special section on the technicalities within the Garth Palridge page? It would be a hard thing to write.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that I can probably write 100 words or so on this. Paltridge's biography is not going to be complete without it, and something has to be done about the way it's currently skewed to presenting his climate change skepticism. I'll start something in my user space and get back when I've completed it. If there are mistakes I'm sure you'll correct them for me! Alex Harvey (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Summary of his AGW position in lede
Policy dictates lede should summarise content. I added a sentence that is completely sourced from the citation, and was threatened with banning by Alex Harvey who seems to have severe WP:OWN issues here. ► RATEL ◄ 09:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- This [6] is a gratuitous PA by Alex which he should retract William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to go to AN/I ► RATEL ◄ 09:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Correct, this has been going on for a while and I lost it. Sorry. These BLP violations have been raised at the BLP/N for the third time. I certainly wouldn't object to having an administrator review this dispute. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
More original research / guilt by association problems
I have reverted some more BLP issues that Ratel has added whilst the third BLP/N is still open here.
The new problems are that (1) the source says nothing about "frequent" speeches. (2) this in no way establishes that Paltridge is "affiliated" with the Lavoisier Group. (3) It is WP:SYNTHESIS to be using the fact that Hugh Morgan is the Lavoisier Group president as evidence of Paltridge's alleged "affiliation" with that group. Finally, the whole thing is just irrelevant to Paltridge's biography and shouldn't be included. There is a single line in a reliable source that establishes nothing more than that "these Australian skeptics tend to hang out together" which is hardly surprising. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, GP is affiliated with Lavoisier, although the only sources for that are blogs at the moment. As for your contention that Morgan did not launch GP's book in his capacity as President of Lavoisier, I suggest you read his launch speech. which contains numerous references to the Group. And please remember that GP's famous claim about CSIRO threats was first published by the Lavoisier Group. In fact, that should go into the page. ► RATEL ◄ 00:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- More incontrovertible evidence of a link is here:
Hugh Morgan, in Melbourne on Tuesday, launches a new book, The Climate Caper:
- IT'S a privilege to be asked to launch this important book. My mind goes back to the launching of Bill Kininmonth's book Climate Change: A Natural Hazard in 2004 by John Zillman. That launch (Ratel's comment: also organized by Lavoisier) was written up in The Age by Melissa Fyfe, then The Age's environmental reporter. Although she was actually in attendance, her report suggested otherwise. More recently we had Ian Plimer's launch at the Windsor, with more than 300 people in attendance. The Age did not report on that event. In Perth, Dennis Jensen launched David Archibald's Solar Cycle 24 (Ratel's comment: also organized by Lavoisier). That well-attended event did get a brief run in the Perth media. Now we have The Climate Caper and I'll lay odds on that The Age will not report on this event
- Hard to argue with that. Clearly, the whole thing is paid for and organized by Paltridge's colleagues at the Lavoisier Grp. I'm still looking for confirmation that the entire book, including publication costs, was covered by Morgan and his group. ► RATEL ◄ 01:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ratel, in all sincerity it appears to me that you genuinely do not understand what WP:SYNTHESIS is. I am not arguing with you about whether or not Morgan is the President of the LG. The point is, you are not allowed to include that fact in Wikipedia unless a reliable source makes the same point, in the same context, in the same way. Sure, you can prove Morgan is the President of the LG. Sure, you can also prove that Morgan launched P's book. What is not clear is whether he was launching the book in his capacity as President of the LG, or in his capacity as a friend of Paltridge. Therefore, what you have presented in the text here is synthesis, original research, and yet another BLP violation. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hard to argue with that. Clearly, the whole thing is paid for and organized by Paltridge's colleagues at the Lavoisier Grp. I'm still looking for confirmation that the entire book, including publication costs, was covered by Morgan and his group. ► RATEL ◄ 01:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- So either he's a pal of Paltridge's, just doing him a favour by launching the book, or he's doing this in his capacity as head of the Lavoisier Group, which paid for the launch, sent emails inviting people to the launch, etc. Clearly it's the latter, and it's no BLP transgression to call him what he is, the President of the Group (launching yet another book in a long line of similar launches). Your constant points of order on minor quibbles like this is just more proof of your tendentious editing. ► RATEL ◄ 04:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- At the risk of being called tendentious, I agree with Alex on WP:SYN in this case, as I have in many of these so called "quibbles". Ratel, why not discuss alternate wording here? ATren (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I concur with ATren, here. Calling it WP:SYN isn't saying it's wrong, just that the sources don't explicitly support it, and that it takes some ... well ... "synthesis" to get there. I also have a problem with calling the voicing of such concerns "tendentious." UnitAnode 06:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) My concerns go further than the mere synthesis problem.
At the risk of being called worse things even than "tendentious", it seems to me that we have a single sentence from a single reliable source trying to link Paltridge with the Lavoisier Group; let me reproduce that sentence here:
Lavoisier Group conferences feature all of the usual sceptics including Ian Plimer, Bob Forster, Garth Paltridge and Ian Castles.
That's it. Note, the journalist who wrote this provides no evidence, and the journalist is clearly biased against scientists who express skepticism. So I don't think this qualifies as a high quality source, although certainly it would pass the minimal requirements for WP:RS. Anyhow, that is apparently the only sentence in existence in reliable sources that attempts to make an association between Paltridge & the Lavoisier Group. So again, the question is not whether Paltridge is really a member or a friend of the Lavoisier Group (he obviously has some connection there); the question is about does anyone out there -- presently -- care? If the answer is "no", no one other than blog posters cares (after all, even this journalist is making very little out of Paltridge in the book), then WP:WEIGHT insists that Wikipedia is not used here to cause and encourage people to start caring about this connection. According to the Wikipedia Lavoisier Group group article, it is a disinformation organisation, spreading denial in bad faith. Thus, we must insist on the highest quality connections and cross all of our BLP bases before the material may be included at all. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I stand by my edit. The WP:GANG approach against me by editors who lean to one side of the debate and wish to remove valid info won't work. Here's the info we have from RSes:
- LG launched GP's book (as it has done for numerous similar books, including Plimer's)
- President of LG gave launch speech
- GP's most sensational claim (CSIRO threats) were made in a LG publication insert see below, this is apparently just untrue... Alex Harvey (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- GP gives speeches at LG conferences.
Now, tendentious editing would consist of trying to wikilawyer that out of the article. I realize you are working yourselves up into a frenzy with the ETS issue so prominent in Australia right now, but running to BLP/N every 5 mins is not the way to do this. ► RATEL ◄ 08:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are you going to respond to the relevant points with references to actual Wikipedia guidelines or are you just going to assert that anyone who disagrees is a Denialist and wrong? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Consider this a formal warning, Ratel. Your post on my talkpage regarding this matter was wildly inappropriate, and any further such bad-faith accusations could result in your being blocked for personal attacks. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a "POV editor" as you called me on my page. UnitAnode 14:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I have again removed this section as no one has so far attempted to give any justification for it. It appears that there is no evidence that Paltridge is a member of the Lavoisier Group; it is unclear as to what "affiliated" with the group is supposed to mean. There is a single source saying that he has "spoken at" Lavoisier Group conferences, but no detail whatever, in a context where the author was discussing the Lavoisier Group and Paltridge is mentioned only in passing. The same author (I have this book) mentions Paltridge only twice, and doesn't seem to have a strong opinion about Paltridge himself. Finally, the author gives no evidence, suggesting that he is merely repeating folklore or things he's learnt by personal experience. So it is still quite possible that Paltridge's only connection with the Lavoisier Group is at the level of friendship or aquaintance with its members and that he's merely been invited to speak there. Nothing here, as far as I can see it, is meaty enough to warrant linking Paltridge's biography page to what is claimed in Wikipedia to be a disinformation group and making thereby a "guilt by association" slur. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- William M. Connolley has restored it again in this edit. The consensus seems to be that everyone other than Ratel agreed that this was WP:SYN. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed the text as I regard this as a serious BLP violation. I remind William Connolley of the following section from WP:BLP, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." Paltridge was said in this article to be "affiliated" with the Lavoisier Group and yet there is absolutely no evidence that he is (no one has even tried to provide evidence of affiliation; it seems that for some having spoken at Lavoisier conferences somehow implies affiliation; whereas it doesn't imply anything beyond having accepted an invitation to give a speech). This is a more serious problem that the synthesis problem which is also serious. Finally, there is the question of weight. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm trying very very hard to see what the BLP concern is here.. As far as i can see all of the sources are reliable (for what they are used for), and every sentence is sourced. I can for the life of me not see what may be potentially smearing, libellous or otherwise problematic with regards to this information and Paltridge. If the Lavoisier group launched the book (as the Lavoirsier group itself says) then what is the problem with writing it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Since you're trying so hard to see the problem here and yet still failing to then I guess I'll have to help you out. Firstly, you would note that ATren (talk · contribs) and Unitanode (talk · contribs) already agreed with the problematic WP:SYNTHESIS that is being restored. Synthesis is WP:OR and is very explicitly never ever allowed into a WP:BLP (or indeed into any article). Why have you not responded to or even mentioned the pre-existing consensus we had here that there is synthesis then (you say after all that you are trying very hard)? Secondly, I assume you understand the meaning of the word "affiliated"; can you say then which source (please direct me to the actual wording) supports the contention that Paltridge is "affiliated" with the Group? Thirdly, on why this is potentially smearing, William Connolley has expressed the view that the Group is not "respectable". Others, e.g. Clive Hamilton, also regard Lavoisier Group as not "respectable". It is therefore a BLP issue to be going beyond the reliable sources in connecting anyone with this group. Note: I have agreed to use talk and use other noticeboards in less serious cases before going to BLP/N. I have not agreed, and certainly don't intend to agree, to stop reminding editors that they need to actually obey the BLP policy. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm trying very very hard to see what the BLP concern is here.. As far as i can see all of the sources are reliable (for what they are used for), and every sentence is sourced. I can for the life of me not see what may be potentially smearing, libellous or otherwise problematic with regards to this information and Paltridge. If the Lavoisier group launched the book (as the Lavoirsier group itself says) then what is the problem with writing it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed the text as I regard this as a serious BLP violation. I remind William Connolley of the following section from WP:BLP, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." Paltridge was said in this article to be "affiliated" with the Lavoisier Group and yet there is absolutely no evidence that he is (no one has even tried to provide evidence of affiliation; it seems that for some having spoken at Lavoisier conferences somehow implies affiliation; whereas it doesn't imply anything beyond having accepted an invitation to give a speech). This is a more serious problem that the synthesis problem which is also serious. Finally, there is the question of weight. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I have started this thread again below. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Paltridge and "Luck"...
I see others have agreed that Ratel is misrepresenting Paltridge's views about "luck" (in reality I don't believe Paltridge has any views about "luck" at all). In this edit we have restored the Paltridge quote, now elevated to the lead where it is given WP:UNDUE weight (to say the least).
The paragraph enclosing it is a gross oversimplification of Paltridge's actual views. Moreover, the quote is mined, apparently to present a view that Paltridge's use in passing of the English expression "with a bit of luck" means that Paltridge must be a Believer in Luck, I suppose like the ancient Chinese.
This is completely unacceptable; the quote is being taken out of context. In the original context, Paltridge is not expressing his view about climate change per se; he is talking about possible long term damage to the reputation of science. This quote, therefore, could only be used to talk about Paltridge's view on dangers to the credibility of science. Can someone please remove it? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Alex here. I reworded it, conveying the same basic information, without the undue focus on the "luck" euphemism used in passing by Parltridge. UnitAnode 15:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- The point here is that we have a scientist opposing mainstream thought on a key issue and saying no action should be taken, and then saying that "with a bit of luck" the dire predictions will be proved wrong. That's the entire crux of the argument between AGW activists and AGW passivists, like Paltridge. You are trying to censor his very own words, words that betray his true (and highly irresponsible) attitude to the issue of global warming. On what grounds are you doing this? He's not referring to the reputation of science here, he's saying that mankind should do nothing about GW and trust in luck. And he says this again and again in his book. ► RATEL ◄ 15:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- "With a bit of luck" is nothing more than an English expression meaning, basically, "This is what I believe is going to happen." It's not some kind of endorsement of Luck (big "L") as part of science, and there's no way that it belongs in the lede of this article. I reworded it in a neutral manner, that is saying the exact same thing without focusing unduly on his use of that English expression. UnitAnode 15:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unlike the other editors here, I've read the book, and I'm now re-ordering it from the library system so as to back up my contentions with page refs. ► RATEL ◄ 00:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- We're talking very specifically about your seeming insistence that the word "luck" be placed in the article. Do you acknowledge that "with a bit of luck"/"with any luck" is nothing more than a (quite common) English expression? Or do you still think that he was actually trusting in "Luck" (big "L") as part of his scientific theory? UA 00:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unlike the other editors here, I've read the book, and I'm now re-ordering it from the library system so as to back up my contentions with page refs. ► RATEL ◄ 00:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, you don't get it. GP is actually advising us all to do nothing and with luck we'll be ok. That is his actual stance. It's not merely a figure of speech. ► RATEL ◄ 02:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ratel, for heaven's sake that's not his stance. He advises that he do a number of things: e.g. (1) invest more in skeptical research in order to actually understand the physics better. Without skeptical research (=sincere efforts by scientists in order to falsify theories) science cannot progress. Science proceeds by "conjectures and refutations" (Karl Popper). That's a widely-accepted fact. He wants science to progress. (2) invest more in adaptation since there is absolutely no way of avoiding natural climate change, whatever you believe about the human-caused component. There is going to be an ice-age. That ice age is going to be very hard for us to adapt to. Life evolved in the sun, not in the ice. His view is that we need to start preparing for change, whatever the science says about human-caused global warming. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, you don't get it. GP is actually advising us all to do nothing and with luck we'll be ok. That is his actual stance. It's not merely a figure of speech. ► RATEL ◄ 02:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ratel, regardless of what he meant by that one line referencing luck, it is still a single sentence from a much larger text in which luck is never mentioned again. Personally, I think it's a puzzling statement, and he probably could have phrased it better, but there is no evidence from the rest of the text that his view relies on luck. The current version in the article intro (don't remember who put it in there) is a much better representation of the crux of GP's views than the earlier one referencing luck. ATren (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Have removed yet another completely misleading statement from the article
In this edit here I have removed the following sentence:
In a paper entitled Nine Facts about Climate Change, published by the Lavoisier Group, Paltridge stated that he was threatened with funding cuts in the 1990s by his employer, the CSIRO, if he publicly expressed his doubts about the extent of the effect of greenhouse emissions.
This sentence is implying that Paltridge wrote the paper published by the Lavoisier Group... In reality I find that Paltridge is merely cited in the Lavoisier Group publication.
I have backed out this nth POV/BLP violation.
I will shortly readd something that is accurate on the funding cuts material. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to have taken the unacceptable position that any little quibble here you don't like can be justified under BLP. If you don't like it, correct it, if indeed it is wrong. In my position the L group aren't very respectable, but I strongly suspect that GP disagrees, and so being associated with them cannot be considered a BLP violation justifying immeadiate action William M. Connolley (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- William, please read WP:BLP policy. Here it is for your convenience:
- Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material ... must adhere strictly ... to all of our content policies, especially:
- We must get the article right.(Ref Jimmy Wales Keynote speech). Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.(Ref Jimmy Wales: "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information".
- What is disappointing me about your comment here is that you have restored the text to the article and you haven't made any effort to actually address the problems I have identified. Your wording suggests you "don't know" if there are problems and you "don't care" either. This is a big problem because the material you have restored is blatantly in violation of the BLP policy. I can assure you that I am not going to adjust my stance of zero tolerance for BLP violations, however many times you and your friends call me names like "the boy who cried wolf". I can also assert quite confidently that you have no right to be telling me how often I may identify BLP violations. Please observe further that the previous two BLP/N postings I have just made have now been agreed by consensus of uninvolved editors to have been the violations of BLP policy that I said they were. In what sense, then, am I really a "boy who cried wolf"?
- May I ask you please to do the right thing and revert this edit here so that I don't need to make another BLP/N posting? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- You have displayed consistently poor judgement in assessing what is a BLP violation and in what consititutes vandalism, and have made false accusations of breaches of both. Please don't be surprised if your reputation has suffered as a consequence William M. Connolley (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Approximately 80% of the BLP/N incidents I have raised ended in consensus for my position; of the remaining 20% I conceded a consensus against me and backed down. Thank you for repeating now in at least five separate threads that I misunderstood what constituted vandalism. I have now apologised to Atmoz. Is there anything else still outstanding here?
- Meanwhile, instead of commenting on me personally, you really ought to respond to the points I have raised -- assuming you really are here to contribute to the discussion in good faith. I invite you firstly to note that there was consensus for removal in this thread above for a great deal of the material you restored (e.g. the original synthesis that is not allowed in any article, and especially not in this BLP). Next, and more blatantly, you have restored a piece of text implying an outright falsehood, namely, that Paltridge wrote a paper published called "Nine Myths of Global Warming" that in fact he had nothing whatever to do with.
- So what I'm going to do is consider your advice, give you a little bit of time to think about this, and refrain for the moment from raising these violations to BLP/N. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have now apologised to Atmoz - no. Also, [9] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)- I have now apologised to Atmoz - yes. [10] How long is this harrassment going to continue for William? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, missed that, assumed it would have been off on your talk. Struck. That leaves part 2, which you've ignored, which is why this isn't closed. If you want to drop this, I'll stop responding, but falsely calling it harassment doesn't help you William M. Connolley (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Part 2 is getting rather bizarre. You'll notice that an administrator had here already identified your new champion's edits as WP:VANDALISM after the latter's persistent refusal to tolerate disagreement. This was followed with over the top personal attacks at BLP/N and then threats at the admin's talk page. It goes without saying that his almost every comment to me contains personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and misrepresentations of my views; but you'll see it's not just me: he's gone after Pete Tillman, Arthur Rubin, UnitAnode, many others -- even Atmoz! Anyone who disagrees with him expects a lashing. The very next day he was back here at Paltridge's page, as if nothing happened, inserting exactly the same material that had caused such disruption the previous day. It was my genuine concern that your editor should follow that link, in order to understand that, "Repetitively and intentionally making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block or permanent ban." I did not accuse him of vandalism; an administrator had made the judgement already. The edit summary was made in good faith.
- So is this satisfactory? Can we now talk about the BLP concerns I have with this material you have restored to Professor Paltridge's biography? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree - this is all bizarre, since we're talking about different edits - check the diffs, please. So is this satisfactory? - no William M. Connolley (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is beginning to remind me of that scene from Life of Brian where Spike Milligan is to be put to death by John Cleese for saying "This piece of halibut is fit for Jehovah!" We're talking about the same diffs. I did not know that it was such a taboo to refer to WP:VANDALISM But now I am much better. WP:VANDALISM, don't go there. It's what real bad people say. Expect the Spanish Inquisition! I understand now. Okay? (Feel free to move this entire conversation somewhere else like my talk page. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why is [11] the same as [12]? It's what real bad people say - no, you're allowed to call edits vandalism when they are. But not when they aren't. Okay? - no, per the above. This is however becoming intolerably pointless, when you insist that two clearly different edits are the same William M. Connolley (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is beginning to remind me of that scene from Life of Brian where Spike Milligan is to be put to death by John Cleese for saying "This piece of halibut is fit for Jehovah!" We're talking about the same diffs. I did not know that it was such a taboo to refer to WP:VANDALISM But now I am much better. WP:VANDALISM, don't go there. It's what real bad people say. Expect the Spanish Inquisition! I understand now. Okay? (Feel free to move this entire conversation somewhere else like my talk page. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree - this is all bizarre, since we're talking about different edits - check the diffs, please. So is this satisfactory? - no William M. Connolley (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, missed that, assumed it would have been off on your talk. Struck. That leaves part 2, which you've ignored, which is why this isn't closed. If you want to drop this, I'll stop responding, but falsely calling it harassment doesn't help you William M. Connolley (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have now apologised to Atmoz - yes. [10] How long is this harrassment going to continue for William? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- You have displayed consistently poor judgement in assessing what is a BLP violation and in what consititutes vandalism, and have made false accusations of breaches of both. Please don't be surprised if your reputation has suffered as a consequence William M. Connolley (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- May I ask you please to do the right thing and revert this edit here so that I don't need to make another BLP/N posting? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with WMC in part, and AH in part. WMC is right that if an edit is not clearly and unequivocally vandalism, you never call it that. But AH is right that the two edits are basically the same, inasmuch as they're both edits where AH called Ratel's edits vandalism. It's not the Spanish Inquisition, though, it's just simple fact that you don't refer to another editor's work as vandalism unless it definitely IS that. UnitAnode 15:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to say here very publicly that I feel humiliated by this, and I am now going to go to Ratel's talk page and apologise. If there's anything else I need to do can you please let me know at my talk page. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's probably a good idea, and may foster much goodwill in the editing environment at this page. UnitAnode 16:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- [13] Alex Harvey (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I read your apology, and I think it was well-worded, and I hope it will be well-received also. While I'm probably closer to Ratel and WMC in my views on global warming, I do share some of your concerns on this page. Hopefully, between the lot of us, we can get this sorted. UA 16:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- [13] Alex Harvey (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's probably a good idea, and may foster much goodwill in the editing environment at this page. UnitAnode 16:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what everyone is saying here. Is it factual or not factual that the claim was published in a LG paper, and that this claim was then echoed in the Press? Yes? If so, we should be able to say so. Because that's what actually happened. ► RATEL ◄ 14:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think the consensus is that the Lavoisier Group is not a reliable source, and their papers/pamphlets/publications should not generally be accepted as references. To the extent echoed in the press, it may be appropriate to include something, but I find less consensus for that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Paltridge, CSIRO censorship and the Lavoisier publication
Since the previous thread turned into an interesting discussion about my personal morality, I have started the thread anew here. In this edit here I have proposed a new wording that keeps the original material and removes the WP:SYNTHESIS and what appears to be a gratuitous association with the Lavoisier Group, which we all seem to agree has a bad reputation. The Lavoisier Group publication would be relevant to an article about its author, Ray Evans, but it has nothing to do with Paltridge. The new wording that I reverted (and that Arthur Rubin also reverted) still implied or at least suggested (mainly just as a result of unclear wording) that Paltridge somehow had something to do with it. He didn't. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- The claim was made via this paper, and this is where it saw the light of day. If you can find another place, prior to 2006, where this claim was publicised, then it should be changed to reflect that. But until such time, the origin for this serious claim needs to made clear. ► RATEL ◄ 02:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- You have indeed here a strange argument about the statement originating in a Lavoisier Group publication (given they are obviously merely quoting an earlier source), but even if I go along with this it is still just plainly wrong. Actually look at the dates before making a statement like this. The Miranda Devine source that I had used and that you've reverted was in fact written in March 2006, whereas the Ray Evans/LG publication picked up the quote six months later in November, 2006. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I quote from the Miranda Devine report: "Yet a paper published last week by the Lavoisier Group, Nine Lies about Global Warming, says the real censorship is applied by the scientific establishment to those scientists who express scepticism about the global warming "consensus". A retired climate expert and founder of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre, Garth Paltridge, says he was threatened by the CSIRO with funding cuts in the 1990s if he expressed his doubts about the extent of the effect of greenhouse emissions."
- So clearly, she got it from an early version of the Ray Evans paper. Now, I ask you to revert back to my version or supply cogent reasons why I should not revert back. ► RATEL ◄ 03:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ratel, okay and have another look because the one you're linking to is not called "Nine Lies about Global Warming" but in fact "Nine facts about climate change." The paper you are linking to has not even been published in print media and as such is not a reliable source. The author in that paper says the earlier paper that Devine refers to was in fact a "pamphlet" which means it probably wasn't published either. It appears that Evans rewrote it because he wasn't happy with it? As such its (online) publication date is November 2006. The earliest (and only) reliable secondary source is the Devine piece. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the earlier version, and it does not appear at all to be a reliable source. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, sorry, the Devine piece is an op-ed, so that isn't a reliable source either. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I now think out of fairness both to Paltridge and the CSIRO we remove the material entirely until it can be reliably sourced. This discussion has shown that he have an op-ed based on an unpublished Lavoisier Group pamphlet which asserts without evidence that Paltridge has said something about the CSIRO. We don't know what the original context was, so unless someone has the book handy and can supply the context in which Paltridge made the remarks, it all should go. Any objections? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, sorry, the Devine piece is an op-ed, so that isn't a reliable source either. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the earlier version, and it does not appear at all to be a reliable source. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ratel, okay and have another look because the one you're linking to is not called "Nine Lies about Global Warming" but in fact "Nine facts about climate change." The paper you are linking to has not even been published in print media and as such is not a reliable source. The author in that paper says the earlier paper that Devine refers to was in fact a "pamphlet" which means it probably wasn't published either. It appears that Evans rewrote it because he wasn't happy with it? As such its (online) publication date is November 2006. The earliest (and only) reliable secondary source is the Devine piece. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I provisionally agree that it is a far-fetched claim that impugns the CSIRO and we won't miss it on the page. However, I seem to remember that he repeats the charge in his book, and I'll be checking that in a few weeks If it is there I'll eventually end up putting it back it, and I'll include the fact that it first appeared in a Lavoisier Group pamphlet. ► RATEL ◄ 06:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposed edit:
In a 2006 Lavoisier Group pamphlet entitled Nine Lies about Global Warming, Paltridge is quoted as stating that he was threatened with funding cuts in the 1990s by his employer, the CSIRO, if he publicly expressed his doubts about the extent of the effect of greenhouse emissions.[1][2] The charge is repeated in his book.[3]
- ^ Devine, Miranda (2nd March, 2006). "A debate begging for more light". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2009-07-29.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Ray Evans (2006). "Nine Lies about Global Warming" (PDF). Lavoisier Group. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-10-15. Retrieved 2009-10-15.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ "Global warming hotheads freeze out science's sceptics". www.theaustralian.news.com.au. Retrieved 2009-10-15.
{{cite web}}
: Text "The Australian" ignored (help)
That summarises the situation accurately. ► RATEL ◄ 07:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well... No... It's not accurate because Paltridge is not quoted; the story about the CSIRO is only mentioned in passing and moreover it is presented as hearsay. I am sorry but there is still no excuse for including this Evans/LG reference. You've just found a better source, and you admit that it's a better source. So if your goal is to improve Wikipedia, you must use the better source and base the text on the best source accordingly.
- Consider an analogy: Imagine if I went off to the CSIRO page now and added, "In a 2006 Lavoisier Group pamphlet entitled, Nine Lies about Global Warming, the CSIRO is quoted as admitting that the Toronto Target was set politically." What do you think would happen? Can you imagine the squeals of "you denialist POV pusher! keep that unreliable source out of this article or be banned".
- Finding a more reliable source doesn't change the fact that the LG publication wouldn't meet reliable source standards and is most unsuitable for a BLP. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what point you are making here. Are you saying that the fact that he first published the claim via a LG paper is somehow not RS? Why? How have you determined that papers published by the LG are not RS in this regard, especially as GP has an ongoing involvement with the LG (they launched his book and he appears at their conferences). Please be specific. I think you'll need to take this to the RS noticeboard. ► RATEL ◄ 11:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- We can do that, but the guideline is pretty clear, see WP:RS, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You tell me, honestly, is an internet published Lavoisier Group pamphlet a reliable source? Is the source adding anything that the Pearson source isn't? And you need to stop saying that "Paltridge first published his claim in an LG paper." It's just not true; being cited in an LG paper is not the same as publishing in an LG paper. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what point you are making here. Are you saying that the fact that he first published the claim via a LG paper is somehow not RS? Why? How have you determined that papers published by the LG are not RS in this regard, especially as GP has an ongoing involvement with the LG (they launched his book and he appears at their conferences). Please be specific. I think you'll need to take this to the RS noticeboard. ► RATEL ◄ 11:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Having looked at the pamphlet, I agree: the claim (funding) is made by the Lavoisier folk, not Paltridge. It should be removed (it was added ages ago by some septic anyway) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mind you, we could add in Over the years, the opinion of that community has been manipulated into more-or-less passive support by a deliberate campaign to isolate—and indeed to denigrate—the scientific sceptics outside the central activity of the IPCC. The audience has been actively conditioned into being receptive. It has thereby become gradually easier to sell the proposition of greenhouse disaster. - that would be fair enough William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would support either complete removal (my view is that Wikipedia should not be used to generate any kind of controversy) or inclusion of the funding allegation based on the Pearson source if that is deemed WP:RS. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- But, my fellow editors, we are not here to construct reality. We are a tertiary source. The primary source is the Lavoisier paper. His anecdote is first quoted there. The secondary source is the RS (The Miranda Devine column in The Australian — yes, an opinion column in a major newspaper can be a RS, especially if it's not saying anything controversial, in this case merely parroting the Lavoisier paper's contents). We are the tertiary source. It is not our place to nod and agree amongst ourselves to change the timeline of events in the real world to suit ourselves. This is anathema to an encyclopaedia. I'm amazed that an admin and and ex-admin cannot see this. ► RATEL ◄ 20:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- The question is, do you think that we have actually misunderstood the guidelines with respect to WP:RS? If you do, then quote the section of the guideline you think we have misunderstood. Meanwhile, what I think is that you are proposing above to do WP:OR, and that is never allowed. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- OR??? How? The Devine article says it all, the whole edit can be taken from that one RS. And it is a RS for this purpose, since it is not saying anything controversial about the subject, or anything with which the subject would take issue. ► RATEL ◄ 05:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is original research if you insist on directly citing the primary sources in order to "establish the time line". The wording that I have in there at the moment is not, I don't think, original research since I am not directly the citing the primary source.
- an opinion column in a major newspaper can be a RS, especially if it's not saying anything controversial, in this case merely parroting the Lavoisier paper's contents. This (as I have already pointed out) is an amazing statement. You are arguing as though the Lavoisier Group was as credible and reliable as Scientific American! And this so-called uncontroversial statement is that the CSIRO threatened behind closed doors to cut Paltridge's funding if he expressed his views on global warming. Can you not see for yourself the irony of all this? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- OR??? How? The Devine article says it all, the whole edit can be taken from that one RS. And it is a RS for this purpose, since it is not saying anything controversial about the subject, or anything with which the subject would take issue. ► RATEL ◄ 05:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Alex, look mate, it was pointed out to me that the Paltridge page has only had about 300 hits in the last month, probably mostly from you and me. lol. So anyway, I'm therefore not going to waste my time fighting you on this. But I'll end by saying that for the record, on this point you are completely wrong. Why?
- Because opinion pages in major newspapers are RS.
- Because the CSIRO claim was made later in Paltridge's book, so the chances that the Devine and LG sources were unreliable on this respect are ipso facto nil.
- Because the mention of the LG source is within the Devine RS, so we do not even need to cite the LG paper to mention that she says it comes from there.
- So you see, you are simply wrong on this from a wikipedia POV, and, more importantly, morally and intellectually wrong to try to sanitise GP's actual real-life involvement with this distasteful group (to say nothing of his now-deleted links to the Institute of Public Affairs, Natural Resources Stewardship Project and APEC), merely because of your own myopic ideological stance. May Jeebus have mercy on you, but your kids may not forgive you. But happy editing! I have better things to do with my life than fight a wikilawyering, truth-twisting POV-pusher over page about a nobody. Cheers, have a nice weekend.
► RATEL ◄ 07:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Alex, look mate, it was pointed out to me that the Paltridge page has only had about 300 hits in the last month, probably mostly from you and me. lol. So anyway, I'm therefore not going to waste my time fighting you on this. But I'll end by saying that for the record, on this point you are completely wrong. Why?
(outdent) Well, thanks for the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I suppose it is at least a good step forward that they seem to have been made more in good humour this time! On your point 1, that's just wrong. On point 2, that's very plausible, and quite possibly correct, but original research. On point 3, have a look at the text and take note that this is exactly very close to what I did to solve the problem. However, in light of the previous discussion I have now changed that reference that pointed to Devine to now point to Pearson instead, although I haven't changed the wording of the text. I see the Pearson as more reliable as he is directly quoting Climate Caper (the crucial point here is that we have an original context in which Paltridge has made these remarks, which was not the case for the anecdote provided by the LG paper). As I said, though, if William Connolley or anyone else wishes to remove this slur against the CSIRO altogether, I have no objection. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll start this thread again here to make the point clearer.
I note that Kim D. Petersen has actually removed the claim that Paltridge is "affiliated" so I can remove that objection.
The remaining problems are two facts completely unsupported by sources and the same synthesis problems from before.
Here is the present article text:
Paltridge is a speaker at conferences organised by the Lavoisier Group,[Hamilton's Scorcher cited] which organised the launch of Paltridge's book on August 11, 2009 in Melbourne.[no source given] Lavoisier Group president[synthesis of source 1] Hugh Morgan launched the book, and Paltridge responded.[synthesis of source 2][no source given that Paltridge responded].
Let's break this down into a number of focused objections:
- The Hamilton source establishes nothing beyond a merely anecdotal claim that Paltridge has spoken at at least one or possibly more than one Lavoisier Group conference. What this actually means, no one knows. Was he invited? Did he volunteer? Did he join? Did he know/care that the conference was organised by Lavoisier? Was he paid? It certainly doesn't mean that "Paltridge is a speaker at Lavoisier Conferences" (verb is implies an ongoing arrangement which is unsupported). Hamilton is not writing about Paltridge here and appears to know and care little about Paltridge. Because it is unclear exactly what Hamilton does mean with respect to Paltridge and Lavoisier it seems to me that this source is not reliable and can't be used to establish anything interesting.
- That Lavoisier organised the book launch in Melbourne is not supported by any reliable sources at all. None of the reliable sources say this. It is established by the Liberal Party blog posting however, but the fact remains that reliable sources have not considered it noteworthy, and therefore, neither can Wikipedia.
- The second sentence is Ratel's pure original research and synthesis, as was already agreed above. One has to look up the Lavoisier website in order to discover that Morgan is the President, and one then has to look up the Quadrant source to see that Morgan launched the book. There is no reliable source that makes this connection.
- Finally, there is no source given supporting the fact that Paltridge responded. This is hearsay.
Now if someone managed to revise the text to remove all these objections perhaps the original research problems could be resolved. But I believe nothing more or stronger than "According to Clive Hamilton, Paltridge has spoken at at least one and possibly more than one Lavoisier Group conference before" is possible using the current sources.
This would then be a gratuitous guilt by association inclusion of a fact that completely fails WP:WEIGHT. That is, there would be more words here about in Wikipedia than in all reliable sources combined, a very big weight violation indeed.
For all these reasons the text either needs to go completely or reliable sources that actually attempt to make the same points that Ratel/William Connolley/Kim D. Petersen are trying to make as well as establishing the weight need to be found. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hang on, why is there a section called "Launch of the Climate Caper" at all? Even if the book is of interest, surely the exact date time and place of where it was launched is not. That short section should go. Poujeaux (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, I have removed the section yet again. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Re-instated, yet again. P, look at the history, the section title has been re-titled in a (pointless and unwise) attempt to placate AH William M. Connolley (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- This appears to be a "because I say so" argument. Any chance you are going to respond in point to the objections I have made? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I have raised this discussion at WP:NPOV/N#Garth_Paltridge. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I have requested that this page be protected
Stuff on edit warring
|
---|
WMC is reverting, with unhelpful edit summaries, and not joining discussions regarding the addition of the short section. I have made one reversion, and I'm not going to be drawn into an edit war, so even if the page is protected in the "Wrong Version", as they say, at least protection will calm the waters a bit to allow discussion to proceed. UA 15:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Despite the "this isn't an endorsement of the present version" it certainly looks like one. Care to justify the removal, or restore the material? Thanks, Verbal chat 16:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Repeating my question, to MoP: Please justify your removal, and why it doesn't constitute edit warring. Thank you. Verbal chat 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Does 'looks like' really translate as 'is' here? I only removed it to maintain the status quo established when I first made the null edit. If I had let it go, I can almost guarantee that somebody from the opposing side would have protested, asking why the other guys should be allowed to have their version stay up even after I intervened. Master of Puppets 17:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Sub-section to avoid edit conflictsI told you this was a mess, MoP. I can't even remember what message board I found this article through (BLP/N, maybe?), but when I looked it over, I had some concerns. I've tried to stay out of the fray for the most part, but it's hard in situations like this one. (And I could have told you -- but didn't -- that someone was going to claim that you were involved now. Lots of bad-faith assumptions going around here.) UA 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm confused. MoP says he is not endorsing any particular version, but is reverting to one particular version. MoP, if you want to join the edit war, you're welcome, but that disbars you from being a neutral referee William M. Connolley (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
CommentEverybody here -- and yes, this includes you -- is being quite silly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
|
Full protection
When I requested protection, the article was, I believe engulfed in a slow-motion edit-war. MoP tried an unconventional solution which, unfortunately, was unsuccessful. I know that it's currently protected in the wrong version, but can we please now discuss the currently poor sourcing for that section? UA 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, time for some real discussion! Master of Puppets 17:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- can we please now discuss the currently poor sourcing for that section? - OK. Should we re-read all the above or do you have a specific problem you'd like to discuss? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I notice that UN's request [17] for prot is distinctly partisan. This is not good faith William M. Connolley (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless can we please discuss why this source is or is not reliable? I would sort of like more data. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Connoley's attacking my motives aside, I agree with Simon. Let's start with the title of the book, and move on from there. Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change: the title alone gives great pause, wouldn't you say? UA 18:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also, on the page referenced (140) the author calls skeptics' views "a strange mix of conspiracy and apocalypse." That seems like an "attack book" (not my best choice of wording, but it will suffice) to me. UA 18:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh spiffy. So you attack my motives, and I assert this isn't good faith, and then you attack me, and you're still pretending to be interested in a polite and neutral conversation? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Um... and? Is it self-pub? Vanity press? Is the author widely discredited? Lacking in appropriate education to discuss the subject? Pending libel complaints? Having a contentious title is not sufficient to make something not an RS. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing WP:RS, I would say it doesn't. The author is "Professor of Public Ethics at Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE)." The publisher is Black Inc. Books, which appears to publish a diverse catalogue of general interest works. Why wouldn't it be a reliable source for the statement that "Paltridge is a speaker at conferences organised by the Lavoisier Group?" Is there any dispute over the accuracy of that statment? Hipocrite (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Add my voice to those thinking this isn't justification for rejecting this source. Verbal chat 18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- While I can't stand her or her brand of politics, wouldn't she be sued if this were the case? And that aside, the quote I gave you from the very page referenced shows that the author is not without clear bias with regards to climate change skeptics. UA 18:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Add my voice to those thinking that this is justification for rejecting the source. The excerpt is an attack piece; it's possible it can be used to support facts, but the association between the group and the author is supported by the neutral and favorable references, such as the third one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Erm? Since when are we making content decisions within a reliable source? Either it is reliable or it isn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Add my voice to those thinking that this is justification for rejecting the source. The excerpt is an attack piece; it's possible it can be used to support facts, but the association between the group and the author is supported by the neutral and favorable references, such as the third one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- While I can't stand her or her brand of politics, wouldn't she be sued if this were the case? And that aside, the quote I gave you from the very page referenced shows that the author is not without clear bias with regards to climate change skeptics. UA 18:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Add my voice to those thinking this isn't justification for rejecting this source. Verbal chat 18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Summary (where we are)
The first ref, used to source "Paltridge is a speaker at conferences organised by the Lavoisier Group," is challenged as not reliable for non-contentious facts about Climate Change Deniers. The entire section may be OR-by-SYNTH. The section is of questionable importance to the article as a whole. Is that give or take a summary of the dispute, in it's entirety? Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Could you be clear about which ref, exactly? and could someone clarify whether it is disputed that GP has spoken to Lavoisier? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- (to Hipocrite) Almost. I can't speak for {{POV}} tags which may have been added previously, and I believe that, if the section were to be kept at all, it would probably be better to source "Paltridge is a speaker at conferences organised by the Lavoisier Group," to the Lavoisier Group itself, rather than to a source which could not be used for anything which is conceivably contentious, as has occured in previous versions referring to the Lavoisier Group as being climate change deniers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the source
- Pardon me but so far it would appear that the argument against the source is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I stand by my initial feeling - source is valid. Simonm223 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not on my part. The argument is that the relevant section appears to be an opinion piece, at best, and more likely, IMHO, an attack piece. Regardless of whether the book, publisher, or author, is generally reliable, that section should not be quoted as a reliable source, in the absence of certification that the publisher (not the author, because of WP:BLP concerns) stands behind every word in the book. It may be as bad as Paltridge's book in that regard. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- And once more: Huh? Is it really possible to decide for us (as editors), which parts of a reliable source is reliable and which is not? I doubt it. Either the book is inappropriate and not a reliable source here - or it is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- (to Hipocrite) Almost. I can't speak for {{POV}} tags which may have been added previously, and I believe that, if the section were to be kept at all, it would probably be better to source "Paltridge is a speaker at conferences organised by the Lavoisier Group," to the Lavoisier Group itself, rather than to a source which could not be used for anything which is conceivably contentious, as has occured in previous versions referring to the Lavoisier Group as being climate change deniers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)(Copied here by Hipocrite (talk))
- Yes, there is a real objection. The Scorched book has every hallmark of a reliable source and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for removing a WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I object as well. I'm not married to the book, but for us as editors to decide which parts of a reliable source is reliable or not, simply isn't an argument that i can buy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fine. Objectively, that section has no business in an encyclopedia. I would go so far as to say it shouldn't be referred to in an encyclopedia except as it indicates the author's opinion. It cannot be treated as a statement of "fact".
- On the other hand, we do have to decide which parts of a "reliable source" are "reliable" for which facts.
- Editorial pages of a newspaper, or even of a peer-reviewed journal, are only sources for notability or the editor's opinion, not for statements of "fact".
- An individual's statement can be used as a reliable source for statements about himself, provided they are not "overly self-serving" and do not include contentious statements about other individuals.
- Whether a generally unreliable source may be used as the "source" of a courtesy link depends on the exact details.
- Blurbs on the back cover or inside cover of a book are unreliable statements by the books publicist, not necessary of any use, even if the author and publisher would both be reliable sources.
- There are many editorial decisions that we must make, depending on the nature of the information sourced, the precise location of the material within the "reliable source", and probably a number of things I can't think of at the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The first argument i can buy (don't know if i agree or not though - which was also why i've only made one contribution in this). As for the second, this is not an Op-Ed or an editorial, nor is it promotional material (inside cover and blurbs), all of which wouldn't be reliable... It is instead a published book, by (what i assume from above) an expert on the topic, printed by a respectable publisher. Thus by definitions in WP:RS it is nominally a reliable source, and we have to consider it as such, and by default also the content within. Your argument though, seems to be that the book is pure opinion, and that may be so (i do not have an opinion either way)... but in that case it is not a reliable source So we are back to the basics: Is the book reliable or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Philosophy, including ethics, is built on opinion and logic. As this is a specialist in public-sphere ethics if we discount him we must discount every other philosophy professor to write on anything on the same grounds. I am not prepared to do so. Argument simply boils down, as I have said to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- If that's accurate (the field really is "public-sphere ethics", and this book and author are otherwise reliable), we must attribute any statement in that sphere. It's too contentious for an article about or referring to a living person. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- This i do not agree on. The liability for the information is the reliable source. We cannot as a tertiary source make decisions as to whether information is "contentious" or not - that is something that solely rests with the secondary sources. What we can do, is look at the relative weight of information, and the reliability of the sources in general. Your argument seems to be that the book is pure opinion of the author, but you haven't provided any argumentation for this... If the book is such, then it is not reliable - but if it instead is a regular work - then it is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's clearly wrong. Quoting WP:BLP#Reliable sources:
- Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.
- — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- And what makes you state that the book contains gossip? As your quote states: is the source reliable? (which is what i've been asking all along) This would certainly indicate so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Page 139 contains quite a bit of gossip. The sentence preceding the only one actually used from the reference consists of speculative gossip. And it's quite clear that one part of a source can be reliable for some information, and other parts of the same source may not be reliable, even for the same information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I do not think that its "clear" - nor do i think that its appropriate for us as editors to decide which parts of reliable sources that are reliable (or gossip (how do you know that the information on p140 isn't carefully researched?)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Page 139 contains quite a bit of gossip. The sentence preceding the only one actually used from the reference consists of speculative gossip. And it's quite clear that one part of a source can be reliable for some information, and other parts of the same source may not be reliable, even for the same information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- And what makes you state that the book contains gossip? As your quote states: is the source reliable? (which is what i've been asking all along) This would certainly indicate so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's clearly wrong. Quoting WP:BLP#Reliable sources:
Protected edit request
{{editprotected}}
Please tag the section in question (whatever name it's under) with Importance and POV tags. Although I don't agree with it being a POV violation, it has been discussed before, as has WP:SYN. The tags in question are: {{POV-section}}, {{Synthesis|section}}
, and {{Importance-section}}. As I said, I don't neceessary agree with all the tags, but they all have been under discussion recently. I also request a {{verify credibility}} tag on the first reference, as the excerpt pointed to by the Google Books URL is clearly not an attempt to write something factual, but only as an opinion piece; and a {{verify source}} tag on the third reference, as it seems to relate to the section as a whole, not supporting any specific phrase in the current protected version. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the contentious section was readded just prior to protection, and should probably be removed until the issues with it are hashed out here at talk. UA 18:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong version? I oppose any edit-protected to change content. Thought it would be nice if the "-" in the front of the section were fixed. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Read WP:WRONG, and stop canvassing. You asked for this prot, and helped cause it with your edit warring. Stop complainnig about the mess you've made William M. Connolley (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Replying to your additions, William, I haven't edit warred. I made one edit. You, on the other hand, have edit warred, made this personal with your attacks, and made it clear you would edit war until you got your way. (See your "join the edit war" comment to MoP in the collapsed thread.) This is certainly not acceptable, at least in my reading of how BLP-related content disputes should work. UA 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not about the wrong version thing, it's about Connoley sliding an edit in before the protection that violates MoP's stated "as I found it when I arrived" rationale. UA 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- So, in other words, the wrong version was protected because of the nefarious actions of the evil WMC? Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop. MoP had a stated rationale when he attempted the unconventional solution. I think many people didn't even realize that Connoley had slid that edit in before protection. It doesn't seem like MoP realized the section was reinserted before he protected it. UA 18:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- So MoP prefered to protect the right version, but he was duped by the EVIL WMC, and protected the wrong version? I was going to assume good faith that MoP was just trying to ignore rules and solve the problem with his earlier "DON'T REVERT MY REVERT," which I was fine with, but you're alledging that he prefers a version, and protected the article on the other version by accident, so someone should revert the article, while it's protected, to MoP's preferred version? Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please learn to spell, and read WP:WRONG like you still haven't William M. Connolley (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Some of us are disabled and are actually unable to spell without putting outrageous effort in - myself, for example. Plz don't assault other's spellin. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- You I'll forgive if needed, though I don't see it as being necessary. UN repeadely making the same error on my name I won't William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Some of us are disabled and are actually unable to spell without putting outrageous effort in - myself, for example. Plz don't assault other's spellin. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Read WP:WRONG, and stop canvassing. You asked for this prot, and helped cause it with your edit warring. Stop complainnig about the mess you've made William M. Connolley (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've used {{disputed}} and tagged the disputed ref. More than one section-level tag would be completely excessive for a one-line subsection. Skomorokh, barbarian 18:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't particularly care what you choose to "forgive", William, as I've done nothing to you that particularly needs "forgiving." You have a long last name. It's easily misspelled. This is why I'm now using your first name when communicating with you, as you seem to take great umbrage at the slightest misspelling of your name. You, on the other hand, can call me "UN" all you like. I know you're referring to me, and it's really no big deal. UA 00:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- {{issues}} is fine with me, as long as the specific subtags are included. Three tags for 2 lines does seem excessive, but the issues have all been brought up in regard the section, and none have been resolved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
- Please try again {{disputed}} is wrong. The factual accuracy of each statement in the section is not disputed, as far as I know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- If the admin got it wrong, it's probably because this discussion is a mess and the request was unclear ;) I have reverted it for now. Please clarify what you want doing, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- The appropriate tags are probably {{POV-section}},
{{Synthesis|section}}
, and {{Importance-section}}. "{{disputed-section}}" doesn't fit, in my opinion. I don't think anyone disputed that the section is factually. I agree that 3 tags for 1-2 lines seems excessive; if one tag needs to be chosen to indicate the dispute, I think {{Importance-section}} is probably the most — important — tag covering the dispute as per the present copy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)- Oppose those tags; not supported. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course they're supported; whether there is consensus that they are necessary, or even appropriate, is open, but all have been supported by direct pointers to the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose those tags; not supported. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- The appropriate tags are probably {{POV-section}},
- If the admin got it wrong, it's probably because this discussion is a mess and the request was unclear ;) I have reverted it for now. Please clarify what you want doing, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please try again {{disputed}} is wrong. The factual accuracy of each statement in the section is not disputed, as far as I know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Group affiliations section, the way it should be
Here is the edit of that section as it should stand. I [Ratel] am not editing the page any longer (reasons above) but I invite other editors to use this as a template:
Group affiliations The Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian front group tied to energy industry lobbyists, listed Paltridge as an "allied expert" between February 2007 and January 2008.[n 6][n 7] In 2005 the Australian APEC Study Centre, a pro-free trade think tank that advocates against the Kyoto Protocol and other climate change mitigation measures, held a conference —sponsored by Xstrata Coal and ExxonMobil[n 8]— at Parliament House entitled "Managing Climate Change: Practicalities and Realities in a post-Kyoto future". Paltridge delivered a speech at the conference,[n 9][n 10][n 11] in which he stated, referring to the IPCC's scientific consensus on climate change, that "[scientific] consensus is not the sort of thing on which sensible people put their money".[n 12] He also stated that the apparent convergence of the predictions of the IPCC models into a narrower range of possible temperature rise has to be taken with "a considerable grain of salt".[n 13] Paltridge has also been linked to the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), an Australian conservative think-tank. In 2009 he was listed on their website as an associate,[n 14] and his paper Limiting Greenhouse Warming: Is It Worth the Cost? could be downloaded from the IPA website.[n 15] |
|
Comments on group affiliations section
- I still assert [n 1] is unreliable. Fortunately, it's not needed to support the material.
- [n 7] is clearly unreliable, being a blog entry.
- Front group is a WP:BLP violation, even in a talk page context, even if n 7 were reliable.
- "
FundedSponsored by …" is almost certainly WP:SYN, even if it were sourced. (No source is given there.) I withdraw my withdrawl of the WP:UNDUE violation. If you're making an effort to include that, it's still relevant. - [n
1011] appears to be an extract from an extract from a publication with unclear reliablility. - The link to Australian APEC Study Centre appears to be to an unmoderated Wiki. We can't do that.
- Attributing the original source, rather than the web site on which the source is found, would be an improvement.
- There may be other clear violations of Wikipedia policy in regard a WP:BLP.
However, with all the other associations, I would no longer consider it an WP:UNDUE violation.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sez you. It's been mentioned favorably in many of the world's major newspapers, eg NYT. Do a GNEWS archives search. And show me an example of its proven unreliability as well. That'll give some meat to your judgement. Oh, then please also supply a link to the section on WP:RSN where it was adjudged non-RS. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 07:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- No. "Sez" WP's policy. This is a self-published source not written by an expert who is published on the subject. Thus none of the exceptions to SPS apply. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Equally, Hoggan's book, Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, which carries exactly the same info, but with more detail, could be cited instead of desmogblog. ► RATEL ◄ 09:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- For those BLP minded folks, a quick search yields a few articles to look at. -Atmoz (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, so striking ref 1, and desmog (ref 7), and "front" from group, does AR's objections 1-3 without changing the text much. #4 - if they were the main sponsors it seems fair enough. If they were only minor, not. #5 - we don't need 3 refs to this anyway. #6 - fair enough, we can just make them a wiki article if they are notable or unlink if not. #7 ? So I think all those can be fixed with no harm to the text - would you then be happy, or at least quiescent? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- William, I do not understand what you're saying here. This new text has all of exactly the same problems it had before. I can't, regrettably, see that any effort has been made to address the problems. I'll break it down:
- section title "affiliations" implies... um... affiliation=membership of groups which is completely unsupported.
- Paltridge is associated with the Lavoisier Group and speaks at their conferences.[n 1] -- (a) [n 1] doesn't say he is "associated" so that is WP:OR; (b) I fully agree that this is not a reliable source and that the author is repeating hearsay, rumour or gossip; therefore [n 1] should not be used anyway.
- The Group organised the launch of Paltridge's book on August 11, 2009 in Melbourne, Australia. Lavoisier Group president[n 2] and businessman Hugh Morgan launched the book, and Paltridge responded.[n 3] -- (a) we have the same WP:SYN as before; (b) source [n 3] doesn't actually say this so we have WP:OR; (c) we have WP:UNDUE as with no reliable sources actually saying this there is a big "who cares" hanging over it.
- In a paper entitled Nine Facts about Climate Change, published by the Lavoisier Group, Paltridge stated that he was threatened with funding cuts in the 1990s by his employer, the CSIRO, if he publicly expressed his doubts about the extent of the effect of greenhouse emissions.[n 4][n 5] -- (a) once again... a complete distortion of the source; wording is suggesting that Paltridge had some hand in being cited by the Lavoisier Group. (b) Ratel's argument that this is important because it is the "first" paper to pick up Paltridge's story is faulty; it may be the first paper he knows about, I don't happen to know of earlier ones either, not that it's relevant, but this does not imply it is the first paper that actually picked up this story. We are not research historians here; being unable to find things on google doesn't imply they don't exist. (c) The Lavoisier source also appears to be repeating gossip and hearsay. It is unreliable.
- I'm not going to look at the subsequent paragraphs because these are exactly the same as they were before with the same references and were already removed after tedious discussions and finally consensus.
- The whole section still needs to go; the most important principle invoked, in my view, is still WP:UNDUE. It is our job to summarise the reliable sources, not to go digging for connections with groups that we regard as not "respectable". No weight for any of this material is currently established in reliable sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Affiliation is not always = membership. It means affiliated in some (as yet) undefined way. If Lavoisier was legit, it would publish a membership list. But we can and should certainly say PG is affiliated, by way of an introduction to all the subsequently stated and sourced links he has.
- Link to NRSP: another source. This time a CSIRO scientist.
- Your claim of OR/SYN/UNDUE because we name Morgan as the Lavoisier president (sourced), at a Lavoisier function (sourced), is absurd. We need some sensible NPOV editors here to demonstrate consensus against this sort of weak argument. You even try a "who cares" argument. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel, trying to suppress the facts.
- Paltridge's claims of bullying first aired in a Lavoisier paper. That's true, demonstrably. They got the allegation from him. Find an earlier source to disprove, or shut it. ► RATEL ◄ 02:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hoggan's book as not much better than his blog (Google books doesn't have a wikilink for the publisher, which probably means that's the only book from that publisher they have excerpts from), and the quoted sections require specific sourcing even if it were a reliable source.
- I concur that many of the paragraphs violate WP:SYN some violate WP:UNDUE. The sponsors of a conference are not relevant in the article of a speaker of that conference, unless the implication that the speaker represents the views of those sponsors is intended. Wikipedia doesn't allow that implication unless it is proven, and even then it must be attributed to the reliable source.
- Even if Paltridge's claims of bullying first aired in a Lavoisier paper, that wouldn't be relevant.
- However — I accept that Paltridge's affiliation with Lavoisier may be relevant, if it's more than just "Paltridge speaks at Lavoisier conferences" or even the unsourced "Paltridge is frequently a keynote speaker at Lavoisier conferences".
- I used to speak at AMS and MAA conferences; does that give any indication that I agreed with their position on Yugoslavia and UN sanctions? In fact, I dropped my AMS membership, in part, because of their extension of the UN sanctions to prevent their publications from being sent to affiliate members in the disputed areas.
- If a reliable source commented on Paltridge's association with those organisations, it might be appropriate for the article. But they'd have to comment on why the association is important, such as a specific comment that his views align with that of the organisations. Selecting 3 independent sources for the association, for Paltride's views, and for the organisation's views, is unacceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Everything in the proposed edit it true. However, since Paltridge is of marginal notability, getting it all properly sourced is not going to be easy. Meanwhile, sites like sourcewatch.org carry the full story. ► RATEL ◄ 05:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
William, I do not understand what you're saying here. - yes, that does seem to be your problem. I was talking to AR, who I don't think has answered my points William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I still don't agree that the financial sponsors of a conference are relevant to the article on a speaker — even a "keynote speaker" — at a conference. Other than that, and pending the posibility that, in regard my point 7, some of the references may really come from an unreliable source, and the apparent source is a news aggregator or some other collector of information without vetting it, I don't see anything more that I see as inappropriate that's worth fighting over. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me a classic case of an attempt at "guilt by association" (you know, "This group is full of quacks, he spoke at their conference, thus he is a quack" type of thing), and with opinion basically split here at talk, I wonder how it's appropriate to keep it in there? UA 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Five editors (myself, Arthur Rubin, Unitanode, ATren, Cyclopia) have all identified precisely the same synthesis problems in the text. As far as I can see, aside from blank opposing assertions that the synthesis is actually not there, there is consensus on that point. That would mean we ought to immediately drop from the text the connection of Paltridge & Lavoisier through the book launch of Climate Caper which is trying to advance the view that he is "affiliated." Alex Harvey (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I agree, however, with Arthur Rubin, who wrote, I accept that Paltridge's affiliation with Lavoisier may be relevant, if it's more than just "Paltridge speaks at Lavoisier conferences" or even the unsourced "Paltridge is frequently a keynote speaker at Lavoisier conferences" Absolutely, if there is a real affiliation, a word which denotes some kind of formal relationship, if not membership (e.g. "hangin' out together" is not "affiliation"), then the article should say so. However this seems so far to be a big, unestablished "if", with the frequent speculative appeals here in the talk page suggesting that actually, there is just no proof of this. Again, this is a BLP, and this stuff should be removed from the text if the proof isn't there. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Concern about BLP violation
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
[moved and titled by Awickert (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)]
- aside I have been digging for some hard evidence of affiliation and still haven't found any but what I have found is evidence that this Wikipedia article has already started to cause damage, see here. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is that really the best you can do? There is no evidence of damage there, merely that this article has been quoted William M. Connolley (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you believe that there is no problem with evidence that Wikipedia has misinformed a member of the public and the faulty message is now reproduced at ABC online (e.g. "Paltridge accepted money from the oil industry", "Paltridge is a member of the Lavoisier Group", etc.) then I would have to agree with you that there is no damage done. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is that really the best you can do? There is no evidence of damage there, merely that this article has been quoted William M. Connolley (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- This above comments are an abuse of the Talk page and must be removed. Editor Alex Harvey has cited off-wiki anonymous comments as reason for altering the page content. This is not to be tolerated. I could make any number of anonymous comments on any number of comment pages and then cite them here as reasons for swaying the argument my way. This devious ploy falls outside Talk page guidelines and is, per these quidelines, subject to removal, namely:
- Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
- Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article.
- If there are any genuine BLP concerns, raise them at the appropriate noticeboard. If no cogent reasons are given for inclusion of the above comments, they will shortly be removed. ► RATEL ◄ 23:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I restored, responded, and archived, in such a way that is consistent with the WP:TALK guidelines. I interpreted the topic to be a cautionary tale about BLP that is relevant to the article at hand and the above discussion. Therefore it satisfies "keep on topic". It is certainly not forum-ey; it is about concerns over BLP on the article, this is very clear at least to me. And if consensus still fails here, then the BLP noticeboard is the way to go, but I find handling things on talk without requesting the administrative sledge is often much, much better.
- In any case, it's over, it's done, it's archived, let's not dig it up from the grave and have another several-day edit war. Maybe it's not satisfying to you or to many others, but it seems that dropping the issue is the way to make the issue stop wasting everyone's time. Also, This [Alex's] devious ploy is WP:ABF. If that's where this has gotten, might be a good time time to take off and sniff the roses (or fresh snow, whatever). Awickert (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I asked for cogent reasons. "Cautionary tales", your judgement about the low value of the BLP noticeboard, and an "it's done, let it be" argument do not meet the cogency criterion. ► RATEL ◄ 07:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, but they sure meet the maturity criterion. This debate has totally killed my plan to end this WP:LAME-qualifying edit war in a stalemate that would be forgotten so that progress could be made on this low-importance biography. Do you realize that we are doing nothing for the article at the moment? As to your judgement about the low value of the BLP noticeboard, please let me say what I think on my own; I am quite capable of doing that. I will rephrase if that makes it easier: let's only get the whole community involved if it's a big enough issue to take up all of their time as well. And as to your edit summary, you insinuate that I am just here to make nonsensical comments. Why would I take my time on something I don't care about to do something like that?
- But go ahead, delete this, and let the edit war continue. Orrrr... collapse this little discussion and add it to the archive and let it gather dust. In either case, I'm signing off of this thread. Awickert (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
anyway
So... it looks like the Lavoisier section needs to go. There are no reliable sources (or even unreliable sources) proving affiliation with the Lavoisier Group. A number of editors have seen it as too good to be true that Lavoisier organised the book launch, that the Lavoisier president gave the speech, and that Paltridge is known via Hamilton to speak at Lavoisier-organised conferences from time to time. He must be a member, but the cunning Lavoisier folk have kept their memberships a secret so there's no way of proving it. Damn it, say some of the editors, the biography still must say or at least suggest that Paltridge is affiliated, by presenting every clue, whereas Wikipedia WP:UNDUE doesn't allow this. Is that pretty much accurate? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- It continues to look like you want it out. It continues to look like you're trying to pretend people agree with you. It still doesn't look like the section needs to go William M. Connolley (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- By reading the comments above, I see three editors (myself, Arthur Rubin & Unitanode) agree on the applicability here of WP:UNDUE and a guilt by association push behind including the section on the Lavoisier Group. There is nothing here for me to pretend. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- The only acceptable version is not to make guilt-by-association type claims in the first place (see WP:BLP) and certainly not to make them without high quality reliable sources. There is no middle ground. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
"There is no middle ground. Compromise is impossible. Any BLP claim made by AH must automatically be obeyed without thinking". Can anyone see the problem with this line of argument? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Even if it were a "majority rules" method there are at least three editors who oppose removal of the section in question. Consensus does not exist to remove this section. Consensus does not exist that there is any WP:DUE violation.Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, you're misreading the guidelines. A potential WP:BLP violation is to be removed unless there is consensus that it is not a violation and that it is appropriate in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't really help unless you have consensus that it *is* A potential WP:BLP violation William M. Connolley (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I said above, this entire section describing who said what to whom on the occasion of some book launch is irrelevant and of no interest. Ref 14 is certainly not reliable, and ref 15 is irrelevant to Paltridge. I am intrigued by this suggestion that we must all 'work with WMC'; perhaps there is some wikipedia rule WP:WMC that I am unfamiliar with. For the record, I agree with Alex H. Poujeaux (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have just read BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That seems very clear. The material is contentious (some of you have been arguing about it for some time) and poorly sourced (one sneering book referring to usual suspects), so it should be removed immediately without discussion. Poujeaux (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't really help unless you have consensus that it *is* A potential WP:BLP violation William M. Connolley (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, you're misreading the guidelines. A potential WP:BLP violation is to be removed unless there is consensus that it is not a violation and that it is appropriate in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent)Ref 14 is a published book. Paying specific attention to the ACTUAL WORDS in WP:RS, please explain how it is not reliable. Ref 15 is only used to source the fact that Hugh Morgan is the Group president, and as such, is reliable for this fact. Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's a published book (from an imprint I can't determine as reliable), but the sentences adjacent to the one quoted are clearly solely the opinion of the author. The sentence quoted may be factual, but the context suggest it could also be classified as solely the opinion of the author, without evidence that even the author had facts to back it up.
- WP:BLP requires that controversial statements about living persons be taken from reliable sources. An individual expert is specifically disallowed as "reliable" for that purpose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps WP:BLP changed since I last read it, but can you point me where in that policy it disalows individual experts? Also, and I'd like to be perfectly clear, I don't have an opinion on keeping or removing the section, just that these paeans to unreliable sourcing are bullshit. Hipocrite (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- That appears not to be explict. WP:RS normally allows self-published material by a recognized expert to be considered reliable, and WP:BLP#Self-published sources specifically excludes that for statements about living persons. It's not specific as material published by a recognized expert by a non-reliable publisher, unless it's essentially self-published.
- The book (at least the parts available on google books) is clearly an attack piece (possibly qualifying as "hate speech" in some jurisdictions), but those are no longer considered inappropriate per se in Wikipedia. It leans against it being considered a WP:RS, even so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- The source in question is not self-published. Your "hate speech" accusation is bizzare to say the least. Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Have you actually read the excerpt? If Paltridge were a member of a protected class, it would be illegal hate speech. As it stands, it's just "hate speech". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- The source in question is not self-published. Your "hate speech" accusation is bizzare to say the least. Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nonsense, Arthur. Criticism is not "hate speech", whatever politically correct drivel that is. ► RATEL ◄ 23:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ahem. Have you actually read the excerpts in google books. That's "criticism", but it's not based on fact, nor claimed to be based on facts. It's based, at best, on "guilt by association" (without stating whether there is any basis for the claims of association), and, more likely close to the "has (he) stopped beating his wife" school of "argument". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)