Talk:Fred Singer/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Removal of sourced material

I've reverted the removal of the following sourced material:

Writing for The Guardian, George Monbiot stated that in 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Philip Morris vice-president Ellen Merlo stating: "As you know, we have been working with Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ...(George Monbiot (2006-09-19). "The denial industry". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-02-26.) Monbiot wrote that he did not have direct evidence that Singer had been paid by Philip Morris.

Has the proposal to remove this allegation of a connection with Philip Morris been discussed? --TS 01:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The SPM is not a summary of the "Full report"

Please read the introduction in the "full report", that makes it very clear that the SPM isn't a summary of it (Singer says this is because of large contributions from Idso after the SPM was released). Therefore it is wrong to state so. The SPM is thus a completely separate document. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But that is no reason to revert the reference combinations that I made. The same paper had 2 references and I combined them. Why did you revert that? Also, I fixed a reference that was (now again IS) totally misleading, and you also reverted that change. Q Science (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The major part of your edit was to remove and change that paragraph to something that is incorrect. Therefore i reverted the whole. (ie. most was wrong => removed) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

100% of this edit was correct. Q Science (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So reinstate it. The major part of this (of which your diff was part), which was what i reverted - was either POV (the blog part) or directly wrong (as pointed out above). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The part you claim is "POV" is nonsense. In this web page, NIPCC means something very specific. In the blog, the report was being made fun of. (I have no problem with that.) However, the link to the blog is written in such a way that I thought it was going to Singer's report. In fact, I have clicked on it several times to try and access the report. I simply clarified what the link was going to by adding

"Criticism of the report posted on a blog"

If you think that indicating that a primary reference is a blog is somehow POV, then please substitute a better description. Q Science (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The way to cite it (as you know), since it is a reliable source is: Mann, Michael E.; Schmidt, Gavin (Nov 28, 2008). "Not the IPCC ("NIPCC") Report". Realclimate.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. Q Science (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As for "The major part of ...", there has been a tag-team edit war for over a week. So, I added a reference that should have settled the dispute. Since you obviously reverted everything else I did without even reading it, I assume that you did not check the reference for the "major part" either. So, let me summarize it, Fred Singer says, very clearly, that the 2008 summary was for the 2009 report. Yet, several people keep wanting to add

• "It is unclear if the report is the "report itself" or the summary of an as-yet unreleased report"

I think that my reference makes it very clear that the added text is nonsense. If you want to say that he is lying, then say that. If you want to say that, in the period of one year, he expanded the report he was working on so that the original 2008 summary does not actually summarize the full 2009 report, then say that. But please don't simply delete links that were intended to stop a pointless edit war. Q Science (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Three things

• The one side of the edit-war is basically scibaby (Tranh, Froebelgifts, TREO all confirmed pupperts).
• You may have noticed that i've pointed out (in edit-summaries) that the SPM isn't a summary of the "full report". (just as above)
• If you actually read the text of "your reference", then you'd notice that it is spelled out that the SPM isn't a summary of it. A summary that isn't a summary of a report .... isn't a summary of a report.

You seem to have want to "stop a pointless edit war" by warring even further - by (which i assume is an oversight easy to make) insert something which is incorrect. (despite it having been pointed out in edit-summaries) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The material being inserted is unsourced and, even if "sourced," would be a conjectural interpretation of what is referred to when the term "report" is used. The added paragraph about "the summary summarizes what exactly?" requires a conjectural answer, which is what is continually inserted. A "report" need not be a written one. My guess is that the conference "report" being summarized are the oral reports of the conference itself. But that, too, is conjectural and no more useful than the quibbling paragraph wondering which report the word "report" refers to (and it doesn't even matter--it is the Summary for Policymakers that states Singer's views). It's why the personal musings and commentary about what the report the summary is summarizing is original research and requires immediate removal.

As such, the paragraph needs to be removed unless it can be well sourced (not unsourced or poorly sourced). This request is specifically consistent with Wiki WP:BLP policies that:

"We must get the article right. 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."

I have done exactly that.

Material such as this is also not subject to Wikipedia's 3rr rule.

Even if it could be sourced reliably, it is quibbling, as stated above, over what is being summarized. But that adds absolutely nothing to the Singer BLP. It is the summary that tells us his views. I suppose the paragraph might belong if there were any indication whatsoever that a notable, 3rd party source considered the lack of specificity as to which report (conference-oral or written) is being summarized to be some type real problem that says something about what Singer's views are. Until such a source can be found, the offending paragraph needs to be removed. --John G. Miles (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There are several things wrong in this. First of all the "BLP hammer", as you yourself notice, this material is not about Singer himself, therefore its not covered by the BLP clause you are citing. And i wouldn't try to invoke the not covered by 3RR if i was you...

The sentence is descriptive of the summary report, it is to some extent original research, but it is here to describe a confusing situation to the reader (where the summary isn't in fact a summary of something). Since its neither contentious, nor in any other way disparaging to Singer, it should be left.

• What would be more productive is a paragraph about the origin of the summary and the final report, with a notation on how the summary is in discordance with the "full report", possibly because a large contribution from Idso changed the "full report" to an extent where the "summary" wasn't a summary any more. I would suggest a read of the introduction to the "full report" for such a paragraph (btw. your assumptions of the summary/report are wrong (according to Singer), it is not about the conference - which would be strange as well, since it was released during it).

Finally - please change the other citations to the first=,last= format (or use the author part for this) since that really is the correct way to cite things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be glad to standardize all the sources referring to Singer when I have time if you haven't already started doing so. I assume we're using standard journal format as our template, but am just curious if it's also a standard Wiki format requirement? Just for my own info, I'd appreciate a pointer to the appropriate Wiki page on citation format requirements.

I'll address your arguments re: the paragraph at issue here asap when I can squeeze out the time to try to figure out where you're coming from in your arguments. I just want to read through everything again first. --John G. Miles (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• As stated in my edit summary, "Discussion" doesn't grant anyone permission to violate Wiki 3rr-exempt prohibitions against unsourced & conjectural material. Talk must resolve these issues first—talk itself isn't a grant of power to circumvent clear Wiki guidelines to ensure proper encyclopedic material. The material, accordingly, is required to be removed by Wiki sourcing/verifiability guidelines and especially so for WP:BLP. It's a "hammer," as you put it, to ensure proper editing. All Wiki policies and guidelines are editorial "hammers." You admit yourself that the material is conjectural, so this shouldn't be an issue whatsoever at this point even if the material were sourced. I'm willing to try to understand your arguments and then try to track down sources to do your work for you (which I'm certainly not obliged to do for you--you are the one insisting the material be included), but I can only do so on my timetable. If you want that timetable accelerated, you need to find notable, 3rd party, reliable and verifiable sources yourself. --John G. Miles (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are misreading 3RR and GRAPEWINE. This is not a BLP issue - but a content dispute. It is very clear that there is a problem with the SPM and the Report - it is also very clear that this is expanded upon in the "full report" where it is clearly stated that the "full report" is not summarized by the SPM. That this is an item of confusion, is shown by Q Sciences good faith (but wrong) connecting of these.

BLP is not a "Veto right" nor is it a hammer - sorry.

The sentence in question is neither contentious, nor is it in any way or form smearing, libellous or in other ways problematic with regards to BLP. Remember please that WP isn't a bureaucracy, and that it is the spirit of the rules not the letter that is followed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to help - the "full report" states:

Since the summary was completed prior to a major expansion and completion of the full NIPCC report, the two documents now stand on their own as independent scholarly works and substantially agree (page vi, NIPCC "Climate Change Reconsidered")

Thus the SPM is not a summary of the "full report". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In reference to this edit, I do not understand the word written in the phrase

states that the summary was written "completed prior to a major expansion"

It seems to me that the phrase

states that the summary was "completed prior to a major expansion"

makes sense and expresses what I think you are trying to say. If not, then I am completely confused.

Also, I do not understand "You are taking the sour". I am obviously missing something. Q Science (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Kim's calling you a drunk ;). But maybe you already knew that. --John G. Miles (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Kim, the 2009 "full report" is very clear that, like the IPCC SPM which is written well before the IPCC technical "full report" is completed, the NIPCC 2008 SPM was also a summary of a similar report according to the only sourced material available [Preface, p. vi, top]--the 2009 NIPCC report; i.e., the NIPCC SPM is the summary of an uncompleted full report that was later much expanded and revised. It makes as much sense to edit the IPCC SPM article to state that it "isn't clear" if the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is a summary of the full report that is later released in a revised, final form. It just doesn't matter to the content of what is in the IPCC SPM and the IPCC final report. The same is true for the NIPCC reports.

Sorry, but while the SPM of the IPCC report was published before the AR4, the report had been finalized. Its a common misunderstanding that anything more than small changes in wording could get into the AR4 after that point. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• The only "unclear"-ness is the quibbling insertion of a personal opinion that now the 2009 report is somehow unclear as well. I'm not sure why you are so wed to personal musings about what a summary summarizes when it has absolutely no bearing on the subject (Fred Singer) at hand. You specifically admitted that above. If it's not about the subject, it doesn't belong under any Wiki policy of notability, reliability, verifiability (i.e., as to the accuracy of your opinions), no original research, etc. Absolutely zero 3rd party, reliable sources have ever suggested there is any murkiness here or, if not precisely clear in your mind, that it matters in the least. The only murkiness is created by the insertion confusing material being insisted upon by you. There is absolutely no issue of "uncertainty" until you start musing about uncertainties--and it's only your musings that are confusing. The original paragraph was always an out-of-place eyesore and an irrelevant personal musing of original research in order to come to an irrelevant set of conjectures. The SPM and final report speak for themselves and "now stand on their own as independent scholarly works" [Preface, p. vi, top]. --John G. Miles (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that this "has absolutely no bearing on the subject", that is the trouble about having sections of a biography delegated to material that isn't notable enough to have its own article, and the major reason that trying to use BLP to redact information is incorrect: Its not biographical.

The major trouble is and was, that a reading of both of these SPM/full makes it clear that the SPM isn't a summary. Thus a reader coming here, to find out why, would have been equally as confused when leaving. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Letting the sources speak for themselves

I hope this write up incorporates everyone's desires and avoids everyone's objections. Here's what I've done to try to make sure all sides of the issues are incorporated into the added material:

• I have expanded on the section that Kim (KDP) insisted be left in as a clarification of the relationship between the SPM and the "final report," but have made changes to satisfy the objections, hopefully, of those who wanted the material to remain faithful to the sources and nonconjectural in tone (see next bullet).
• I have avoided conjectural interpretation of the sources by quoting from the sources themselves (the 2009 NIPCC final report, primarily) to describe what they say is the relationship of the SPM to the final report. I could quote more extensively (the whole relevant paragraph if needed), but felt that was overkill, so included the main clarifying points of the 2009 NIPCC final report as they relate to the (unfinalized) draft final report (as indicated in the sources) that was the object of the SPM summary.
• I have given up my objection to material being superfluous and irrelevant to Singer's views and have included the material despite my best judgment.

Hopefully, in trying to meet everyone's objections/insistencies, we can all accept what I think is a very reasonable compromise to let the sources speak for themselves if the issue is to be included at all. --John G. Miles (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As i was writing in the above quote that was cut by WP (the one ending in sour"), you are taking the source (the "full report")'s word as authoritative. I would suggest a small weakening of the language, stating that "According to the 2009..." it happened this way (instead of jumping in with "This ... was based on an unfinalized". The trouble here is that the SPM is differing too much from the "full report", so some explanation is needed. Otherwise i'm suffiently satisfied ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the language needs to reflect that it's the NIPCC's explanation. I made the changes you suggested and hopefully they meet your expectations. --John G. Miles (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Btw. i made a rather large "small" change in one section, by changing the way references inside the wikisource is formattet, i hope you agree with it. It frustrated me that i couldn't find a specific reference (the Boykoff one), so i made it readable and distinguishable where text and refs are.... Turns out the Boykoff one was a cite doi kind, so i could change it without editing, but i still prefer this for sections where the text is obscured by refs.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that I've had the chance to look it over, but works for me in principle. Anything to help make the editor's job easier. --John G. Miles (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure

About this [1] because the link between the text part 1 (Sagan said X Singer said Y) and the second part (Singer was right about A Sagan was right about B) is completely lacking. The juxtaposition reads as though there was a completely right and completely wrong hypothesis which is ludricous. The two cases were too complicated for a yes no for either. However I did not like the text it replaced either (the "both wrong" comment smacks of OR). I am inclined to revert but remove the "both wrong" remark so the reader can judge. I would like to find better text based on these new sources but I am handicapped because I cannot find the text of the new references. Does anyone have them? --BozMo talk 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the thing is notable enough to merit inclusion - i rewrote it because the section as it stood was too self-serving towards Singer. (both were indeed wrong - Singe believed that there would be no effect beyond a few days to weeks - and Sagan was wrong in assuming that the oil-fires would keep burning (one up for Red Adair)).

The new paragraph is worse (imho), since it now cherry-picks what i believe to be opinion-columns (although i'm also not able to read them). My question to Bluefield would be: Have you read these? Can you tell us the author? And in which section of the Washington Post are they located? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The previous text referencing the “study” is WP:OR because the report does not specifically mention Singer. If it did, then it might be worthwhile to include, but doesn’t. The three sources I have added all mention Singer and Sagan in relationship to this topic. While Singer wasn’t 100% accurate on this, he was orders of magnitude closer to what really went down then Sagan was, that much is indisputable. I know that Kim is going to point to computer models and what not, but computer models were the original culprits behind Sagan’s wildly off the mark predictions and prognostications, so much for them. BluefieldWV (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you answer these please: Have you read these? Can you tell us the author? And in which section of the Washington Post are they located? (i've read the book ref - but none of these). And i'm sorry to say that none of them were correct... Singer say days to weeks (regional), and Sagan 1-2 years (global). The correct was: 1 year (regional). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is too much wrong with what you posted above to leave uncommented on, so I will attempt to address it all.

Sagan predicted the fires would burn for up to a year and based his predictions off of this assumption. Although Adair and the rest of the crews worked quickly, the last of the wells was not extinguished until November of 1991, nearly 11 months after they had been lit. There were two main sources for the smoke: the wells and the lakes of oil. The lakes burned up rather quickly as they were large in surface area but shallow, no attempt was made to extinguish them. The well heads burned for nearly a year, but at a much slower rate.

Two reliable source (reproduced below)that I have found would seem to conclude that Singer was indeed correct on his assumptions that the smoke wouldnd rise aove 6km and that the effects wouldn’t last somewhere on the order of days instead of years and would be felt locally, not globally.

For example, Hobbs and Radke (1992) described the atmospheric properties of the Kuwaiti oil fires. Individual fires produced distinct isolated plumes that merged beyond short distance and fanned outward horizontally. Smoke was never observed to rise above 6km and this prevented rapid transportation over large distances. As a result of scavenging by clouds and precipitation the residence time of a smoke particle in the atmosphere was relatively short (days). The composite plume from the north and south oil fields was 40km wide south of Kuwait City and 0.5-2 km in altitude. [2]

and

Airborne studies of smoke from the Kuwait oil fires were carried out in the spring of 1991 when 4.6 million barrels of oil were burning per day. Emissions of sulfur dioxide were 57% of that from electric utilities in the United States; emissions of carbon dioxide were 2% of global emissions; emissions of soot were 3400 metric tons per day. The smoke absorbed 75 to 80% of the sun's radiation in regions of the Persian Gulf. However, the smoke probably had insignificant global effects because (i) particle emissions were less than expected, (ii) the smoke was not as black as expected, (iii) the smoke was not carried high in the atmosphere, and (iv) the smoke had a short atmospheric residence time.[3]

I have not seen anything that indicates the effects on the local climate in the gulf lasted an entire year. The Dowling abstract you cite does not appear to support your conclusion and the entire report would have to be made available in order to evaluate it.

The Washington Times articles are reposted here for all to see. While the one is an opinion piece, BLP says that opinion pieces can be used for opinions and have to be worded as such, which I believe they are. BluefieldWV (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edit Disputes

The use of this journal entry (and I am not even going to address the ridiculous inclusion of a weblog in a BLP) would appear to be pretty clear cut BLP violation as it does not directly mention Sanger. This is a biographical article, not a place to debate generic views about solar-climate forcings (to quote JGM). If there is a specific cite that addresses Sanger’s scientific views on this subject, then include it, otherwise leave the debate to its relevant page. WVBluefield (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE when describing a minority viewpoint, you have to describe the majority viewpoint as well, and make sure that the reader understands the difference.. This goes for any article, BLP's are not excluded. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to cite something that directly addresses Singer then. Otherwise it belongs in the parent article. WVBluefield (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Please take the time to read WP:UNDUE. If we present a minority position (and we do), then we must present the majority position and make clear which is which. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you ... that’s why we should have a detailed discussion of this topic over at Solar variation. Please read WP:COATRACK for more. WVBluefield (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but No. This is where the fringe view is presented - and therefore the mainstream view must also be presented. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have certainly made your opinion on this clear. Now lets hear from some other people. WVBluefield (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim, this is where Singer's views are presented. All biographies, by definition, give weight to the views of the person being biographied, not to others' views about topics that may or may not represent the views of the subject of the biography. You're mixing apples and oranges here. If someone has something to say about Singer's views on solar-climate forcings, then give us a reliable, verifiable, notable source--WP:UNDUE doesn't abrogate that need even in non-biographical articles. --John G. Miles (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What about instead some comment like "more information about the relationship between Singer's views and those of others can be found at (wikilink to whereever we discuss this properly including mention of Singer)". That works better from a usability point of view. The link which people didn't like doesn't actually go to an immediately useful page for the genuinely curious. --BozMo talk 21:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a wonderful compromise. WVBluefield (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If I'm understanding BozMo correctly, you're speaking of adding only material that includes Singer's views regarding the subject at hand. I would have no problem with that whatsoever and think it's a great idea. But if we're talking about generic "Singer is mentioned in this" type material, I'd suggest the bio would be better served (the "clutter" thing) if something like that were added to the "Further Reading" section.

My concern in the present "dust up" is just that we stick to the purpose of biographical material--that "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject [of the biography]." Would you mind clarifying exactly what comment and source material you're suggesting be added, BozMo? --John G. Miles (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop quoting arbitrary sections of policy, I think we are all familiar with it. This edit [4] implies that Singer's 1500 year theory is based around solar variation. Is it? We don't seem to say so in the article. If it is then my suggestion would be that we include mention of Singer's view here or here and add a sentence saying his views are discussed in context at those locations. That will achieve the main aim of providing accessible context for his views. --BozMo talk 10:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Singers view is too fringe to be reflected in the other articles. For one he is the only one who holds it, and secondly it hasn't been published in any scientific venue. And we still have to have a description of the mainstream view, even if its a biography, when we are describing a minority viewpoint. Otherwise BLP articles will end up as coatracks for fringe viewpoints. I've read some parts of the book, and Singer is rather unclear as to the causation of his 1500 year cycle, which he links to Bond events --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If "all are familiar with it," there wouldn't have been those insisting on inserting material not "about the subject of the biography," which is precisely why the page was protected. This isn't a little Bozmo fiefdom where you get to tell others how to edit. You'll just have to get used to mine--or not, it's really up to you, but I'm all for civility. The policy I was concerned with (as indicated in my original edit remarks well before the page was protected) is a very unarbitrary one and the reference very deliberate so you would know where I was coming from. I have every intention of being supportive if we're following Wiki policies and guidelines--they're there for a reason and (I'm assuming) an unarbitrary one. --John G. Miles (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you didn't quote policy in your edit remark[5]. Secondly to address your edit-comment: Biographies are not excepted from our NPOV requirements (of which undue weight is a central tenet), which states clearly the majority view on a position must be stated, if you are describing a minority viewpoint. Since Singers viewpoint inarguably is a minority one, the majority position must be described clearly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I'm tired of debating your novel interpretations of Wikipedia policy and other minutia (I summarized the policy--don't argue about my your characterization of it as a quote; I wasn't trying to be literal--it's a term of art). The policy clearly states that material in a biography is to be about the subject of the biography, not a kludge for including extraneous debates except as the material directly addresses the subject of the biography. I understand your position and you understand mine. Rehashing them over and over again just clutters the discussion. It's a debate (with you) that I'm done with. Feel free to take the last word. --John G. Miles (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Learning that a notable person takes a minority or iconoclastic position on an issue is a relevant and often important piece of information about that person. I think both for NPOV and for better understanding of the person it's important to include that info. For example, Linus Pauling's quackery on Vitamin C are discussed in his article (not a BLP, but that's not relevant to this issue). Brian A Schmidt (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two things wrong with your analogy. Linus Pauling is dead and his entry no longer qualifies as a BLP. Secondly, there are a plethora of sources that directly address Linus Pauling's and his quackery on Vitamin C. What we have here is an attempt to argue Singer's views on the solar cycle's impact on climate with sources that do not directly address his thoughts. WVBluefield (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(indent break) I thought we said it wasn't solar: Blunt looks like it isn't. I am left wondering then if his opinion on this is even notable at all, if no one else discusses it? Not everything about a notable subject is notable? Please be careful about taking BLP policy in isolation; the way policies evolve in WP isn't always coherent and are not a sound base for extrapolation. And it isn't for us to decide whether being in whatever fringe is relevant to other views Singer has, that would be OR. --BozMo talk 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC) On the rest of it, I am sure Kim has a better grasp of the policy than JGM but I still struggle to see how that crumby link achieved NPOV. --BozMo talk 22:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that on biographical articles of prominent 9/11 truthers and prominent people who are also 9/11 truthers, no rebuttal of their beliefs is included in the articles (see James H. Fetzer, Gore Vidal and Steven E. Jones). While these articles comment at some length about the topics beliefs, there is not any space given in the biographies to a rebuttal of what is most certainly a WP:FRINGE theory. It would seem reasonable that a similar standard apply here. WVBluefield (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance but what is a 9/11 truther? I know 9/11 means 11/9 but beyond that... --BozMo talk 20:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Truther. WVBluefield (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah 9/11_conspiracy got it. But e.g. James H. Fetzer has a whole section entitled "Controversial views" whereas here the corresponding section is called "views"? JHF has controversial views whereas the lede here has only that Singer has views on controversial topics. Does that make a difference? Not sure, but maybe if we are trying to ensure people know the views are fringey without using words which defame or undermine the LP--BozMo talk 20:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

We need to distinguish between "fringy" and unproven. Solar variability is being debated in the mainstream journals, including the cosmic ray/condensation nuclei issue and there are more journal articles than listed in the current Wiki piece on the subject. NCAR, which sits squarely in the global warming camp, has published recent studies on solar variability and climate change, as well as others. It seems that the appropriate way to refer to other views is using the method Wikipedia has used all along--i.e., including the This Article reference in the appropriate narrative in the bio itself. No need to invent a new method just for Singer.

A change of the introductory sentence from to the Singer's book quote to this would be strictly NPOV and would at the same time give readers the link to gather more information:

• "Singer has emphasized natural factors, including solar variability, over anthropogenic causes to explain global warming and he wrote"

Anyone object to my changing it? --John G. Miles (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert and loathe to get involved but is this 1500 year cycle thing really he believes in really solar variability? Now that I look more perhaps not, and Kim seems to say it is more fringey than that. By the way isn't fringe the same as an unproven minority view dismissed by the majority? --BozMo talk 08:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A change of the introductory sentence - which sentence? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think he means the opening sentence in this section: Fred_Singer#Global_warming. --BozMo talk 09:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The current opening sentence is a clear and concise summation of Singer's views. I see no reason to change it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you checked the history page before commenting here, but the page was protected for the precise reason that KDP, Connelly and others felt we needed to provide a link to a discussion on where the solar variability issue lies in the grand scheme of things specifically in relation to this quote by Singer. I agree with them that the idea that more information is always better and this satisfies both camps objections during the "edit war" that's resulted in the page being protected from further editing (sorry if I'm explaining stuff you've already researched--just wasn't sure so I'm summarizing here). Adding a link to existing Wiki articles is a standard way of doing that. As you stated, the current statement introducing Singer's remarks are clear and concise. The new one will be clear and concise as well, but just have the added link on solar-climate forcings that was being requested (and that Singer's book, from which the quote was taken, also addresses). At the least its harmless, but useful, and the rest of the debate about Singer's views can continue elsewhere uninterrupted--this doesn't impinge on that debate in the least. --John G. Miles (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nor am I interested in debating the "fringe" vs. unproven thing here either. It's why I kept my suggested edit out of that debate--the proposed "solution" simply provides more information on solar variability and global warming (that KDP, Connelly, and others wanted included) using a very standard Wiki method of linking related articles within the narrative (specifically, solar climate forcings mediated by cosmic ray low cloud nucleation) which Singer's book specifically addresses as a possible solution to the global climate cycles he cites (also from peer reviewed literature). The majority of the book deals with the cycles themselves, with a chapter on the solar-forcing hypothesis as discussed in peer reviewed literature--you can check it out with a google books search. References to solar variation are addressed from the start, in the book, as a likely major causal agent.

As indicated in the Solar variation article here [[6]] and here [[7]]), it's a peer reviewed debate that continues to this day (which is how I personally distinguish "fringe" from "we don't know but it's worth a look at" in science--to be clear that's just my observation unrelated to the proposed edit and a completely separate issue to what's being discussed here; I'm just trying to answer your specifically stated concerns above about whether Singer links the two). --John G. Miles (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is just the tiny little problem with your analysis, that while Singer does nod his head at Svensmark and others, his "interpretation" and synthesis doesn't accord with neither Bond nor Svensmark. Svensmark's hypothesis while not supported by many scientists, is not fringe, its a minority opinon - which is not the case for Singer... Singers interpretation doesn't accord with Svensmarks papers. (i refer you to page 7-8 in Singer&Avery (the book)). And his "conclusions" on page 11,12 and 13 are supported by virtually no sceptics. (As an example "Global warming has produced more CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming" - which is as close to indefensible scientifically as you can come). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting synthesis of Singer's "synthesis," but I went to pains to make sure my suggested "solution" didn't include my views about Singer's solar-climate forcing thesis as this is exactly what I have no intention of debating. It's also why WP goes to pains not to allow others' synthesis and WP:OR to be added to articles. So I guess we're now arguing against your original editorial position that something about solar variability had to be included (the "edit war") by way of a footnote that had nothing to do with Singer. Sorry, at this point I'm totally confused by what you're arguing for except that it can't be an innocuous, NPOV reference to a non-Singer viewpoint on the subject that everyone was previously insisting was essential. Again, I really have nothing more to add besides what I've already added in pursuit of a compromise. --John G. Miles (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

New book coauthored by Singer

What happened to the mention of his denying a cigarette smoke, cancer link? Their are clips all over youtube of him being interviewed in national media on the subject. 71.52.96.109 (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)some dude

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (Paperback) 
by Dennis T. Avery (Author), S. Fred Singer (Author) 
Paperback: 276 pages 
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (February 1, 2007) 
Language: English 
ISBN-10: 0742551172 
ISBN-13: 978-0742551176

BLP/N Report

There have been several reverts on the RealClimate-sourced criticism of Singer and his report, so I've asked for help at the BLP noticeboard. ATren (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Singer listed in 2008 report published by Union of Concerned Scientists

Dr. Singer was listed in a 2008 report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists as being a scientific spokesperson affiliated with groups funded by ExxonMobil. See "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Use Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science," Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mporemba (talk • contribs) 09:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Discrediting people one disagrees with

The article is presently a mishmash of claims about Singer that can be documented, and those who can not. Undocumented statements should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.191.144.148 (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree on removing undocumented statements, as well as poorly sourced statements, when they are contentious. "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" - WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Editorial in Reuters

[8] looks dubious - the article is titled "Climate skeptic: We are winning the science battle", rants about NIPCC for a bit, then slides off to climategate. Titling a section based on that looks wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest an alternate title and/or some additional content from the article to justify the new title. I think the current quote should remain, though. This section may expand a tad depending on whether he makes additional statements regarding this topic. --GoRight (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a biography of a noted atmospheric physicist, not a gossip column for posting juicy titbits about his latest pronouncements. --TS 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The comments were made by the subject of the article in response to a notable incident and as a recognized skeptic his commentary on this subject is pertinent. --GoRight (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Section consisting entirely of quotes

I have removed a section consisting entirely of quotes, which also has raised WP:COATRACK concerns. It looks far to much like advocacy is being shoehorned into this article. Verbal chat 13:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The quotes are well-sourced, recent, and relevant. They should remain in some form. I will not make any more changes today, but if those quotes are not allowed to remain, then a lot more has to go in this article, starting with the prejudicial "Martian" section. ATren (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The initial issue is the entire section was quotes, and appeared crowbarred into the article. If you want them to be in the article, please propose where and how now it has been disputed. Thanks. Verbal chat 13:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the article. WP:COATRACK is an essay. WP:RS and WP:V are policies and those edits meet both and it is clear that they are Singers comments on a notable topic. --GoRight (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:COAT is a type of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP violation. NPOV and BLP are both policy. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing violating either NPOV or BLP by including direct quotes from the subject of the BLP. Does anyone honestly doubt that Singer made these statements? --GoRight (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If the ClimateGate comments are considered coatrack, there are plenty of sections in this article which are in violation as well, starting with the NIPCC and Great GW Swindle sections. There needs to be consistent application of standards here, so if the ClimateGate stuff must stay out, I will be removing the other stuff as well. Not today though, as there is too much warring already. I'll start on it tomorrow. ATren (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct ATren, the NIPCC and TGGWS sections are mostly coatracks, as has been pointed out earlier. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would add that anyone who has an issue with the presentation of the material, Rewrite it yourself. Dont play games about WP:STYLE, when its really the content you object to. WVBluefield (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone arguing about style issues. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont either, but Verbal objects to it, in part, because its a collection of quotes. WVBluefield (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if it is the fact that I only included direct quotes from the sourced articles, I'll write up a little summary of the Climategate affair to include as well to provide context for the section. Would that alleviate people's concerns? --GoRight (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See my changes to that section. Is that better? Does that resolve the POV dispute? --GoRight (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it makes it much worse. I don't know how such information addresses any of the concerns brought up here. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was intended to address the NPOV concerns being raised by including a NPOV overview of the incident to which his remarks apply. I can't alter the POV of the statements themselves, they are what they are and they reflect the subject's own POV and have been attributed as such. I figured the best way to provide such a NPOV overview was to pull the pertinent bits from the lead of the Climategate article itself since that enjoys so much editorial oversight at the moment. The BLP related claims are spurious under the circumstances. There is nothing in BLP stating that we can't quote the subject of a BLP in their own BLP.

Can you please articulate what it is about quoting the man on his own BLP that you see as being a POV violation? --GoRight (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, TS has removed the update and since Ronz seems to agree I shall not restore it. I am open to suggestions on how to address the supposed POV issue with the section (once we know what that is). --GoRight (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled too. What is the objection to this section? --BozMo talk 20:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a biography. It is being used as a coatrack for discussing the news from a POV perspective. In general this article consists of rather a lot of material that is non-biographic, and which have ended up here because the issue isn't notable enough to merit its own article, or to be included in for instance Global warming controversy. We see this every time there is a small furore... for instance when TGGWS came out, every biography that had even a slight relation was suddenly spouting commentary on it.

To be clearer: Of course Singer has an opinion here, the question remains is it the relevance to Singer than drives the inclusion or is it the issue - if it is the latter, then its coatracking (imho) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I vote to remove the NPOV tag from the climategate section. It is ok to change it to change it to coatrack or weight, but NPOV is nonsense. BTW, I also think the the section title should remain Climategate (particularly since that is what Dr. Singer calls it), not the definition of climategate. Q Science (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"I also think the the section title should remain Climategate" - I agree but wasn't going to press the issue today. Also, can we change the opening sentence of that section to read "Speaking about the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as "Climategate", in a December 2009 editorial Singer wrote:" instead? --GoRight (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, so we now have the unbalanced tag on that section. I am still unclear on what additional material people we looking to add here. Can someone please articulate what it is that is supposedly missing so that we can work on balancing it? --GoRight (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The item doesn't belong on the page. It can be removed and the tag will no longer be there. --TS 22:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the sourcing, it isn't encouraging. Why are we citing World Magazine as a reliabe source on anything? The article cited is a toxic waste dump for bad science journalism. A magazine who mission statement is "To report, interpret, and illustrate the news in a timely, accurate, enjoyable, and arresting fashion from a perspective committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God" cannot conceivably be reliable; for instance as soon as you mention evolution they'll reach for their bibles and rely on the most literal interpretation of that book. --TS 22:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The item does belong on the page. World Magazine is notable enough to have an article so I see no reason it can't be used for this. We're not making claims about scientific fact here. It's just a quote from Singer concerning Climategate. Do you have some evidence to suggest that the quote is inaccurate? --GoRight (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You're serious about this? A publication that has an article about it is a reliable source? Sorry but that's ridiculous. --TS 22:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to GoRight: The concern here isn't one of verifiability, but of undue weight and point of view. Specifically, this article is being used to present cherry-picked quotes of Singer's in order to promote a certain point of view. The article needs to be trimmed down to notable, biographical information about Singer. --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If this section is currently POV, then again, what is missing that SHOULD be there to balance it out? --GoRight (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the attribution to Reuters. Actually it's a blog hosted by Reuters. We should make it plain that this isn't the universally acclaimed Reuters news service. --TS 22:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually this IS the Reuters news service. It's hosted on reuters.com, the Reuter's link on the top left takes you to www.reuters.com, and this is part of their Analysis and Opinion section of their on-line publication. Either way, as I suggest above, I don't mind indicating that this is an editorial written by Singer. I'm not trying to misrepresent anything here. --GoRight (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper blogs are an interesting problem. Typically, these are used to allow reader feedback (comments). In general, first section (the "article") should be considered as reliable a source as anything else in the paper. However, the reader comments below the article should be considered unreliable for wikipedia purposes. In this case, since it is written by Singer, it is probably a very reliable source of his opinion. Q Science (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Reuters article in question is apparently an opinion piece written by Singer himself. Obviously that isn't the Reuters news service, which is pretty impartial news reporting. --TS 23:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess you missed this part of my statement(s) above: "Either way, as I suggest above, I don't mind indicating that this is an editorial written by Singer." And from the very start it has been attributed as being his opinion so why are you going on about this? --GoRight (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Singer is directly mentioned in a number of the climategate emails. As a result, this section should be here. I would like to add something about how the CRU researchers were frustrated that Dr. Singer was able to get papers published and other negative comments in order to balance Singer's own comments. However, in the past, whenever I have tried to quote the emails, there were objections. I am open to suggestions. Q Science (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any pointers handy? --GoRight (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this

"You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on the MSU issue, Tom. During much of that time, we've had to do science in "reactive mode", responding to the latest outrageous claims and inept science by John Christy, David Douglass, or S. Fred Singer. For the remainder of my scientific career, I'd like to dictate my own research agenda. I don't want that agenda driven by the constant need to respond to Christy, Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly don't want to spend years of my life interacting with the likes of Steven McIntyre."[9]

would explain why Singer is making those remarks. It just adds a bit of context. Q Science (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If the section were about references to Singer in the emails, and this had been mentioned in a significant number of reliable sources, I think I might be persuaded that those emails should be discussed here. But your argument seems to be entirely different, and I don't see why it follows that his opinion on ClimateGate as reported on a self-written blog and in an extreme anti-science magazine should be considered of merit. --TS 23:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a youtube video of Singer making remarks (such as "They are smearing opponents in a personal way."),[10] but not the one in the reference. I agree that many of the secondary sources are not very "respectable", but we are not supposed to use primary sources. I am not sure if we are allowed to use videos of a presentation. Perhaps that would make us reporters. However, the primary "reliable" sources tend to not cover things that they don't agree with. Q Science (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I've seen the Youtube stuff. And the email site you reference above. Alas I think we will have to wait until some reliable secondary source reports on it, if ever. To the extent that he his mentioned this is appropriate material for the article once it is available in reliable sources. Perhaps Singer himself will post something on his site? I haven't checked. --GoRight (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

IEA

Note the following: [11]. In this entry Singer makes the following quote:

"The Climategate disclosures over the past few days, consisting of some thousand of emails between a small group of British and US climate scientists, suggest that global warming may be man-made after all – created by a small group of zealous scientists!"

As well as:

"I consider the whole matter a great tragedy not only for science but also for the institutions involved and for many of the scientists involved who have in fact spent many years and whole careers on their work. In particular, I have some personal sympathy for Philip Jones and feel he has been dealt a bad hand. Trying to correct temperature observations from weather stations around the world is extremely difficult work. It involves much detail; it is certainly not traditional science. However, I cannot endorse the actions of this group and hope that an impartial investigation will bring closure to this difficult matter."

What is the general view of the Institute of Economic Affairs and this blog entry? I see no reason that this source cannot be used to quote Singer himself.

I would propose to use this in place of the existing World Magazine quote since it can be used to provide a more balanced set of statements. I would further propose to reorder the two quotes so that they appear in chronological order, i.e. this one followed by the Reuters one.

Aside from the fact that some here would prefer to have these removed altogether, would this provide a more neutral option relative to the section as it stands now? --GoRight (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How about using Singers biography as a biography instead of as a coatrack for the latest news-items? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What coatrack? I am suggesting to replace one reference with an ostensibly better one. That's called incremental improvement. So rather than throwing red herrings at me, answer my actual question. Is the IEA source better, worse, or no different relative to the World Magazine one? --GoRight (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack

There's a great deal of concern that this article is being used as a coatrack to promote certain news events and points of view, rather than only as a biographical article. There are BLP, OR, NPOV, and NOT problems here as a result, the biggest being NPOV. The article needs a careful going-over, rewriting where necessary, so that is built mainly upon independent, reliable, secondary/tertiary sources about material that is biographical in nature. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please pick one POV template, please? Using two is overkill. I don't care which you choose. --GoRight (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a concise statement of the POV concerns? I cannot see anything shocking but don't know much about the subject. --BozMo talk 07:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bold attempt at fixing major problems

I've made a series of edits in an attempt to fix the concerns outlined here, primarily coatrack. The multi-version diff of my changes is here. In summary, I've trimmed several extended quotes down to summary statements, trimmed down the section on NIPCC, and removed all but a brief statement on the Great Global Warming Swindle. Also some minor copy-edits. ATren (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Directionally I think this is right and thank you for a bold attempt. I haven't had the chance to go through in detail though. --BozMo talk 21:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bozmo - the end-result is a significant improvement. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

What is the point of including "Amount of funding for 2007 NIPCC report identified from SEPP Form 990" ? It doesn't seem to me to be of any significance to an article about Singer, aside the Primary source issue etc? --BozMo talk 19:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable expert blog comments

I have removed these. I don't really want to start an argument but I think these detract from the article and their inclusion adds nothing substantial to what is already said. I invite disagreement, of course. --BozMo talk 21:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(Don't cringe) I agree. --GoRight (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

BozMo, you removed statments about Singer that WERE well sourced and irrefutable. He WAS recruited by the the Tobacco Institute. The Tobacco Institute PAID $20K to the AdT Institute for his services. He WAS the author of the first draft of the report and only appeared on the final report as the Reviewer. This has nothing to do with a neutral tone. It has to do with provable facts for which references were given.

Are you going to maintain your position? The truth is that some people do do things that don't reflect well on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli Rabett (talk • contribs) 02:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure I maintain my position. Things like those which would only serve to undermine someone's credibility should not go in unless they are notable for them. --BozMo talk 12:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

co-authored vs principal author

Please provide a reference that explicitly refers to Singer as the "principal author" of the Cosmos paper and I'd happily concede this point.Andonee (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Polemic versus documentary

"Channel 4 said that The Great Global Warming Swindle was clearly identified as an authored polemic of the kind that is characteristic of some of Channel 4’s output. As a public service broadcaster Channel 4 has a statutory obligation to commission distinctive programmes which appeal to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society.

"The channel said that the programme sought to present the viewpoint of the minority of scientists who do not believe that global warming is caused by the anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide. The programme sought to examine the debate over the cause of global warming, outline possible alternative causes and give a voice to the minority who question the prevailing orthodoxy and its possible motivations." [12]

That is to say, Channel 4 who commissioned the programme called it a polemic. Of course a polemic is a kind of documentary, but the word "polemic" is to be preferred because it is more accurate. --TS 00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am changing the wording from "polemic film" to "polemic documentary" which is the correct term for this genre of documentary. A polemic documentary is any documentary that takes a position on any particular issue (Gore's documentary would also be classified as a polemic documentary because it argue from a specific point of view). Given that is the technically correct form of the term, I'm making a very modest change to reflect the actual genre. If anyone has questions, just google "polemic documentary" or "polemic documentary" "genre OR style" to see the wide variety of documentaries represented under under this category. The word polemic is not used colloquially in this sense, but rather formally and technically and, hence, as TS puts it, is more accurate. --John G. Miles (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Paper" or "magazine article"

Given the connotations of the term "paper" and the non-scholarly status of Cosmos, wouldn't it be better to refer to the document supposedly co-authored with Roger Revelle as a "magazine article" here? Bkalafut (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

Its a blog William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably, FG seems to be reverting-without-talking. The source you're using is a blog. You can't do that. Asserting that it references a real source is meaningless, because we can't trust the information in the blog. That is the point. If we could trust what was in it, it wouldn't need a ref elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The original source links directly to the Newsweek retraction. There is no verifiability issue here. FellGleaming (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

But of course there is the its-a-blog issue. Which you've ack'd in the article, even if you don't have the honesty to do so here, by doing what you should have done in the first place: using newsweek direct as a source. The question now arises as to whether you've paraphrased it accurately William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC, you've inserted countless references to blog entries. You're well aware that "it's a blog" is not a black and white issue. Or are you saying its valid to remove every reference to the RealClimate blog throughout all WP? FellGleaming (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been done to death. Someone with more patience than I can explain it to you if you can't be bothered to look it up for yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To FG, if the blog links directly to the Newsweek article then wouldn't it be logical to reference the Newsweek article itself instead of using a blog as an intermediary? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's more logical to use the original source (which is not a blog, btw) because it redacts out all but the relevant section (while still linking to the original source), making verification of the claim easier. However, I have since linked to the original NW retraction FellGleaming (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There was no mention of an "apology" in Samuelson's column, so I fixed the wording. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your fix is inaccurate. Please see below. FellGleaming (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Newsweek Source

SBH, you are misrepresenting the source. Allow me to quote the relevant section:

“ NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" is a peripheral and highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability. (The company says it knew nothing of the global-warming grant, which involved issues of climate modeling. And its 2006 contribution to the think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was small: $240,000 out of a $28 million budget. ”

Samuelson is refuting the entire concept of an industry-funded "denial machine", a point of view he expounds upon not only in this story, but in interviews after the fact. Please do the right thing and revert your edit. FellGleaming (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to fix it. Please try to use neutral wording that is close to the source, e.g., "Samuelson stated that the story's accusations of ExxonMobil sponsoring a think tank..." etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Please let me know if you find the new version acceptable. FellGleaming (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Its written by a columnist in his bi-weekly column, which (as such columns do) stating his opinion. Presenting it as if it is Newsweek that is retracting, refuting or apologizing is fundamentally misleading. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying "Newsweek retracted the story" is misleading. Saying "Samuelson called the story..." is not. Also, Samuelson is a contributing editor, not a random columnist. FellGleaming (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Samuelson's bio at Newsweek lists no other responsibility besides writing biweekly columns. It would be misleading to indicate that Samuelson's opinion column reflected a change of mind at Newsweek.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine title - but please look up what a contributing editor actually is. As Brian says: Samuelson writes a bi-weekly column for Newsweek. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Samuelson's bio at Newsweek lists him as contributing editor:

• http://topics.newsweek.com/newsweek/robert-j.-samuelson.htm

Removing this information simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is against WP policy. The new form of the text is longer, less clear, and seems tailor-made simply to hide that fact. Please do the right thing and self-revert this one. FellGleaming (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A "contributing editor" is nothing but a fancy name for a freelance writer who commonly writes articles for a magazine. It has no real connection to being an editor of a paper/journal/magazine. In this case the more correct (and less misleading description, as evidenced by your own confusion) is columnist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, we have the magazine itself calling him an contributing editor, and no source whatsoever calling him a "columnist". Yet you want to remove a well-sourced description and replace it with an unsourced title that is designed simply to minimize his position? His official title is contributing editor. I realize you may not like the sound of that, but no one here is confused by it. Further, Samuelson's position with Newsweek is certainly not "freelance". You may want to look up the definition of that term if you're confused by it. FellGleaming (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The same reference that you are using to call him contributing editor, states that he is writing a bi-weekly colum - which is the only thing that he apparently does for Newsweek. So its quite accurate and well-referenced to call him a columnist. Sorry - but do you have any reference for him not being freelance? Since in "contributing editor" in fact implies that he is? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not accurate. A source saying that a person is a contributing editor, who writes a column, is not a source that says a person is a columnist. Two entirely different concepts. Anyone can write a column. That does not make them a "freelance columnist". FellGleaming (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose one solution is to insert the wiki definition of "contributing editor" into this section of the article to help clarify that his opinion's aren't Newsweek's. A better solution is to delete the reference to "contributing editor" or "biweekly columnist" and just say that "Newsweek later carried a rebuttal opinion by Robert Samuelson". Brian A Schmidt (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The very best solution is to delete the entire reference to Newsweek. It might be marginally notable on an article on SEPP, but in a bio on Singer himself, it not only falls below the bar for notability, but seems a simple muckraking smear attempt, and the text length, compared to his entire career, has severe problems with undue weight as well. FellGleaming (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that is certainly not the best solution. We can't just remove critique because a single individual feels that it is over the top. And Samuelson is a single individual writing an opinion - whereas the Newsweek article is a journalistic piece. NPOV is not to present Samuelsons personal opinion as equally valid/with weight as a front-page journalistic article. As for being about SEPP - nope - that is WP:OR - and besides that since his wife left SEPP, SEPP == Singer. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek piece

I am very sympathetic to the view that the Newsweek piece is not sufficiently about Singer. It could possibly be in the Marshal Insititute article. Also the $10k from Exxon Mobil does not meet my understanding of BLP. I therefore propose deleting these two paragraphs. --BozMo talk 11:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm - to some extent i agree and disagree with that. The Newsweek front-page article is rather long - but 3 paragraphs (roughly 9% of the article) is about Singer, several other highly reliable sources talk about much the same thing (ABC,CBC) and have the same focus on Singer and the connection to an organized industry "denial" campaign. So there is at least 3 major news organizations who have focus on Singer in this regard, that would make it rather tough on us, to disregard it and not to mention it. (do note that the $10K is what Singer admits to - not what the references allude to)

I can certainly see us compacting the information into a smaller section - but a complete removal is in my opinion against WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, As a result of your disagreement I have read through the article linked to in the footnote and can find no reference to Singer on the first, second, fifth or sixth pages 30 words about him on the third page, four sentences (80 words) on the fourth page. Plus one other mention of "Singer's group" in a list. As you say the article is rather long (about 1600 words) of which 120 well into the "padding" are about Singer. None of these sentences were linking him to the main title or allegation of the article, they are just background info on denialism. I think it is quite misrepresentative to say that this is an article about Singer or that mentioning him in this context amounts to notable coverage. I certainly can see no RS claim that he was other than a passenger and I think this is not appropriate or relevant for his WP article. --BozMo talk 12:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I went through it myself, when i read your comment :) First of all let me state clearly that i didn't say the article was about Singer (singular) - i said that around 9% focused on Singer. But let me try to explain my rationale, for stating that this is the case: page 3 paragraph 5 defines defines what "denial machine" means in the context for the next paragraphs (Singer is included, as you noticed) - and if we were in doubt then Singer is used as an example in 2 of the following paragraphs. I only counted the paragraphs where in Singer was mentioned by name - but most of the context on page 4 is related to Singer (by the def on p3para5 and by the examples and quotes).

Btw. it should be noted that i'm not arguing for any expansion of the text in the article - in fact i'd be more than happy with a short text summarizing the issue raised in the various refs to this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose cut to:

A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial implicated Fred Singer, Exxon and others with a $5m industry funded plan aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change, which was later abandoned[37]. Singer has stated that his purported "connection" to ExxonMobil was more like being on their mailing list than to holding a paid position, pointing out that the single unsolicited donation of $10,000 actually received from ExxonMobil comprised a tiny fraction (1%) of all donations received.[38][39] In the following week Newsweek published a contrary view which characterized the story's conception of an industry-funded denial machine as "contrived" and "fundamentally misleading".[40] —Preceding unsigned comment added by BozMo (talk • contribs)

Seems fine except for a weight issue - either take out some of Singers comments to this - or cut the contrary view. The weight in the literature we've found is towards the Newsweek story - not towards the rebuttal. (here 38 vs. (45 + 25 ) words). My suggestion is the Samuelson part - since it is incorrect (cherry-picked words out of context), since he is referring to a specific case about the AEI, and not the general picture with those words. It also saves us the trouble of attribution which should be done for opinions. Cut the Singer part down so that we have roughly 50:50:

A 2007 Newsweek cover story implicated Fred Singer, Exxon and others with a $5m industry funded plan, which was later abandoned, aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change[37]. Singer has stated that his purported "connection" to ExxonMobil was more like being on their mailing list than to holding a paid position, having received only a unsolicited donation of $10,000 which comprised a tiny fraction (1%) of all donations received.[38][39]

Something like that. Stronger focus on abandoned - cutting down the Singer reply without losing arguments - and removing the incorrect Samuelson quotes. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Samuelson is referring to the concept of a industry funded "denial machine" as contrived and fundamentally misleading. The quote is correct. Sameulson's remarks about AEI were "long ago discredited". FellGleaming (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest edits

I've reverted the latest changes - the reason for this is:

• This breaks with WP:WEIGHT and WP:V. Samuelson's opinion column carries significantly smaller weight than a frontpage journalistic article with the full editorial review of Newsweek. The text about an Exxon campaign being discredited is not in the reference - the only thing Samuelson calls discredited is a specific instance with the AEI (ie. not Singer).
• This removes contnt that is supported by a reliable secondary source. With no good rationale - if we are going to "trim it" then we should cut down or consolidate text from various references - not remove the refs.
• This because it is wrong. It wasn't astronomical observations - but erroneous interpretation of these. Do please note that it wasn't Singers erroneus interpretation. To my view it is far better to state that Singer was basing this on wrong data, than to say that he misinterpreted astronomical observations.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• (a) The Newsweek piece isn't about Singer.
• (b) SEPP's executive board has 5 members. It isn't "SEPP = Singer".
• (c) This entire article as metastasized into a COATRACK to impugne Singer for his CC views. The material on AGW far outweighs the entire rest of the article. For a scientist with as lengthy, varied, and distinguished as Singer, this is clearly undue weight.
• (d) Re: Phobos, the original astronomical data was in error. Better observations led to a different conclusion. In any case, Singer never made the original allegation or wrote a paper or any other piece of it. He made one remark about it 50 years ago, and you're giving his bio entry greater length for this than even his original remark? This is clearly undue weight.

FellGleaming (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Reading the sources in full, it seems the entire article section on Phobos is entirely in error. Singer did not conclude the satellite was hollow, and his suggestion it may potentially be artificial was clearly predicated with caveats, which are not captured in the article text. Further, its a single off hand remark in a 60 year career; it's not only not notable, but seems included as a simple attempt to poison the well. FellGleaming (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This concerns me. Is there anywhere easy I can find the references in full? --BozMo talk 18:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever about this anywhere on the web but here. Three sources in the article. Two make no mention of Singer at all. The third, Astronautics, is reportedly published by the AAS, but they don't list it. They list one with a similar name, the Journal of Astronautical Sciences. It could have been renamed, but this one has been published since 1954.

In any case, the quote within the reference is: " ""My conclusion there is, and here I back Shklovsky, that if the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore martian made. The big "if" lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them.""."

Assuming this is accurate, he hasn't expressed anything definite, and clearly has serious doubts about the data. And if its not accurate, why is it even in the article?

And of course, the larger issue is notability. Why is this even in the article, if not for well-poisoning? A brief offhand remark that attracted no notability 50 years ago, made by a person still alive today? How is this relevant to such a lengthy and varied career? FellGleaming (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No one has weighed in to support this albatross of a paragraph. I intend to delete it if no one raises a cogent objection by tomorrow. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 13:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the material. It's potentially a very interesting bit of history, so if someone can suggest how to readd it without BLP concerns, I would certainly favor it. In the meantime, the material is below. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 23:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of significant third party coverage of this, I agree that it is a miscellany which shouldn't be there. If it looks like other people did or do discuss that opinion much we would need to reconsider. --BozMo talk 05:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Material removed
In 1960, Singer was one of several scientists who speculated that the Martian moon Phobos was artificial in origin. The claim was based on the erroneous conclusion that Phobos was hollow. Later observations demonstrated conclusively that Phobos was not hollow, rendering the artificial origin speculation moot.

At first glance, I thought the removal of the Phobos-as-hollow-artifact stuff was reasonable and well argued. But, I got curious, and did a little digging, and...nope, can't find any publication called Astronautics, can't find any evidence that Singer ever made any such statement. So, I removed this unverifiable material from the Phobos article as well.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent; thank you Curtis. Someone went to immense trouble to use Wikipedia as a platform to punish Singer for his CC views. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 21:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I went looking for who did this, and guess who I found? [13]. WMC, reinserting the bald faced claim that "Singer proposed Phobos is a space station built by aliens". Fell Gleaming^(talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

FG it is not a bald faced claim - it was reliably sourced then. Perhaps you forgot? You did remove it yourself (including the reference) a few days ago. You on the other hand are seriously out of order here by casting aspersions at another editor . --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Curtis, you may want to look back in the archives - Astronautics did exist, and the article as well - you can even request a copy if you want (i can't remember if i still have it around) - but at the time of the insertion, the reference was found and distributed to those who (just like you) had trouble accepting it :)

The thing to keep in mind here is the date, and the basis Singer had for this. Both taken into account there really isn't anything odious about it. It is only with todays eyes that it looks strange. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant archive discussions [14][15][16][17] - the first one is the one to read on Astronautics - the reason you can't find it is that the journal was renamed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case the aspersions are highly warranted. The issue isn't the source. Even if the source exists, its a complete and utter mischaracterization of that source. Further, even had the source been correctly summarized, simply mentioning it prominently in the lede is still another abuse. I'm curious who actually had the gall to characterize Singer as simply "an electrical engineer" in those early versions. I'd look back through the records, but I'm afraid of what I might find. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 23:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

May i ask you to refactor and remove everything that is a personal attack, or assumptions of bad faith in the above. Remove this comment when you do. Article talk space is not an acceptable venue for such- if you have a problem, you must take it to enforcement, ANI or another place where it is acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the Singer talk page is an entirely appropriate venue to discuss a pattern of tendentious edits to that article. Or are you claiming that beginning the intro of a scientist of Singer's stature with the claim "he's an electrical engineer who thought the martian moons were built by aliens" was done in the best interests of Wikipedia? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 23:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fell - Any problem that may have existed in the lede was rectified long ago, and nowhere does the article claim "he's an electrical engineer." The central issue here is the Phobos-as-hollow-artifact stuff. I originally supported its removal, thinking, "If it ain't on the Internet, it doesn't exist." But, Kim has cleared that up for us. I agree that it isn't significant enough to be in the lede, but including it along side Singer's later views on Phobos is certainly appropriate, as it is a very interesting notion. Yes, Singer's statement was predicated with caveats, and those caveats were included in the material that was deleted from this article. Therefore, the material should be restored.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.--CurtisSwain (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the restoral has several problems:

• Your new source still doesn't mention Singer.
• So far we have only Kim's word that any source mentions Singer, and that the source is accurately represented.
• The material is written to suggest Singer, among others, made the speculation and came to "erroneous conclusions", when Singer was openly critical of the data used to reach this conclusion (again, assuming Kim's source even exists)
• The new sources found, if anything, suggest that Singer had no real association with this hypothesis. If anything at all, he made one offhand, mildly critical comment on the subject. Unless he can be shown to have any real involvement with supporting or promulgating the idea, it does't rise to the notability of appearing in his bio.
• Given the lengthy history of tendentious edits and coatracking this article has seen, the inclusion appears designed simply to cast Singer in a poor light, rather than write a balanced, well-informed biography.

If you can find a way to rewrite the material and solve these problems, by all means do so. It's certainly an interesting bit of past history. But its inclusion in this particular bio, with its particular wording, has severe and what appears to be irreconcilable problems. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This statement: "So far we have only Kim's word that any source mentions Singer" is utter nonsense, and a rather clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Do please read the archives. If you ask nicely it may even be that Raul still has a PDF of the reference, and will send it to you. Otherwise a library can be recommended. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously failing to WP:AGF. Kim has provided the source reference for you - it is not "only Kim's word that any source mentions Singer, and that the source is accurately represented," you are required to assume that Kim is accurately presenting the source in the absence of a history of source misrepresntation. Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Known for, etc

Re [18]. Singer is "known", overwhelmingly, as a climate change denier (and an oznoe skeptic too).

Also, SV added that he "specializing in planetary science, global warming, and ozone depletion". I think that is misleading / wrong in the context of his professional career, which was ages ago, when he specialised in, oh, dunno really, the page says designing instruments for ozone (but that was in pre-ozone-depletion days). A an amateur (or perhaps semi-paid) denier he has indeed written lots about GW etc.

William M. Connolley (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

SV's edits, and blind reverst, have broken this; hence the tag William M. Connolley (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This section appears to be a PoV challenge. I'm not taking sides, but there is ample precident that if there's a PoV dispute ongoing, tags should be on the article - in fact, theres at least one admin that I'm certain you'll defer to who has actually edited through full protection just to insert such a tag. Hipocrite (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps true elsewhere but on the CC pages Connolley, et. al. have fought edit wars over tags on articles and hence the standard is that there needs to be an agreed consensus that the tags belong there. Thus far, there is only William complaining. William does not a consensus make. --94.136.50.63 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Tags are supposed to be added as a last resort. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You've reverted attempts to remove "specializing in planetary science, global warming, and ozone depletion." You have not yet responded to WMC above asking "I think that is misleading / wrong in the context of his professional career, which was ages ago, when he specialised in, oh, dunno really, the page says designing instruments for ozone (but that was in pre-ozone-depletion days). A an amateur (or perhaps semi-paid) denier he has indeed written lots about GW etc," yet you have reverted his removal of "ozone depletion." You can't both refuse to solve the PoV dispute via discussion while at the same time reverting, and also refuse to allow the fact that there is an unfinished discussion on this talk page. It appears to me that we are actually at last resort here - what else do you suggest WMC do? Hipocrite (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed this, the article stated "specializing in planetary science, global warming, and ozone depletion." This was sourced to the back cover blurb (of questionable reliability) which states "... He devised the instrument used to measure stratospeheric ozone from satellites and was the first to point to and calculate the human-based production of atmospheric methane..." I do not see any evidence to generalize from the fact he made a detector and calculated methane to what he specialized in as an atmospheric physicist. I don't think that source is strong enough or specific enough to use as a main-descriptor in his headline. Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

professor emeritus

[SV copied a pile of stuff from her talk page, which is bad. If you want to know what it was, it is this diff [19] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)]

As an intro, I'll self revert my recent sampsonite attempt on request. I'm concerned, however. Could someone reference that Singer is a professor emeritus? Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. Will [20] do? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really, as it's self published. UVA dept of environmental science disagrees - http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty-staff/faculty/ Has other PE's listed, but not Singer. Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a source. [21] Perhaps we could drop the dept a note to ask whether their list is up to date. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 13:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

He left UVA in 1994, according to his self-published CV (which does not list a emeritus position). That would be pretty out of date. Is the source you provided avaiable online, or do I need to go to the library? Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It is (available, that is), at [22]. Where does this describe him as a PE? Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Google Books lets people in different places see different things, but I can see it here, p. 52 (scroll to the end), which I think is the last page, or possibly the back cover. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 13:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess that works. I'm very concerned that he's not a PE. Is it appropriate to ask UVA if he is, or is that harassing? Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's fine to ask them. I can drop them a note if you like. Or you can if you prefer. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 13:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Either way. No time now, but I'll do this evening. Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW the reference appears to imply he was a PE in 2000. That does not mean he still is. These things often carry residence or other requirements and are not always until the grave. --BozMo talk 14:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For virginia though [23] implies it would be permanent. So its probably ok --BozMo talk 14:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really, as it's self published - curiously, SV was quite happy with self-pub stuff over at McI William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "curiously" or "over at McI" refer to, and it was Hipocrite who wrote "Not really, as it's self-published," not me. Snide comments just waste time, William, especially when they miss the mark. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It means this [24]. Care to re-think? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And? Please make your points in one post rather than several cryptic remarks followed by questions from others trying to work out what you're saying. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, let us do this very slowly. Over at McI, you've said that self-published refs are fine, if uncontroversial. So the same applies here. But you haven't said it here William M. Connolley (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Self-published refs are fine in BLPs if by the subject. See V and BLP. I'm still not getting your point. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It is by Singer. I'm still not getting your point. Please read this exchange and reflect on whether more efficient communication would be worth a try William M. Connolley (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the games. I have no idea what you're talking about and I doubt anyone else does either. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Is Please read this exchange and reflect on whether more efficient communication would be worth a try advice that only you are allowed to give and others are obliged to take? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(←) I don't know why this is causing problems. Whatever that reason is, stop now. My point on self-published sources is that they are reliable untill their reliability is called into doubt or if they are self-serving. From WP:BLP - "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if ... it is not unduly self-serving ... there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." Given that a more reliable source - UVA, appears to state differently, there's now reasonable doubt, so testimony transcripts are no longer acceptable sources. The published afterword, however, is, so I will wait till my UVA question is responded to. Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a self-pub-by-Singer source from 1996 [25] (we can assume that Singer == SEPP, yes?). My name is S. Fred Singer. I am professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone understands your point. There are self-published sources written by Singer saying he is professor emeritus, and there are non-self-published sources saying the same thing, probably because he says it. We use both, and we're allowed to use both per V and BLP. Hipocrite or I, or both, are going to email the university to double-check. What is the remaining issue? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You bafflement is plain. But an email from you, copied here, purporting to be from the university, would be meaningless. We have Singer saying it, what more do we need? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say we needed any more. It is Hipocrite who wants to check it, and it's fine to do that. And "purporting to be from the university"? You're suggesting we might forge an e-mail? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(←) My problem is that we have sources that lead one to believe he is emeritus. We have other sources that lead one to believe he is not. What we need is the word - even if it's not includable in article space as WP:OR - from the source that is definitively accurate. If they say he is emeritus, then we'll include it, sourced to something. If they says he's not emeritus, we just won't say he's emeritus. Hipocrite (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

professor emeritus. Generally

I don't know a definitive definition, or even if one exists but locally and elsewhere the usage seems to be this: (where are the formatting buttons!!!)

• An emeritus professor is someone who was a full, paid, professor, who has retired with respect to payroll, but who continues to maintain an office. He may well teach or research, but it is the office door and physical inbox that counts.
• In most non-payroll terms, an emeritus professor is not retired. He still goes to work, although he do so part time, even very part time.
• When the person fully retires (gives up his office, pigeon hole and parking privilege), he no longer appears on the university, school and department registers, and is in practice no longer referred to as emeritus. He is now past tense (like the dead and otherwise departed), and is referred to according to his most senior title of his career, which is probably "Professor", although it can be a political or military title instead.

Thus, emeritus would seem to describe the twilight period between formal retirement of the professor, and the retirement-proper, and is bound by the payroll-pension transition at the beginning, and the complete loss of office space at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs)

Well, there is professor emeritus William M. Connolley (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Professor emeritus is an honor that, as far as I know, most retiring professors do not receive. Receiving it can imply that the university considers the professor to be unusually valuable or still active in research. At least sometimes, emeritus professors can still apply for grants through the university. Cardamon (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Professor emeritus, to my knowledge, is not something received officially, but is a title put on doors, websites and other registers to signify that the professor has formally retired but continues to enjoy privileges as if he has not retired. It shouldn't so much be said that it reflects anyone's judgment of value, just that the person continues to be active and the department lets them continue to control some real estate. Certainly emeritus Professors can and do receive grants, employ staff, support others' applications and receive money (directed or not, but usually directed, so as to be untaxable) in lieu of payment for teaching. Generally, they can't hold bureaucratic positions, such as head, or dean. Generally, they don't want to, with this being the real benefit of the transition.

I don't like the lost formatting buttons, but I do like how I can now colour code links like professor emeritus by size, so that I immediately know that the linked article is barely more than a stub. I'd add material there if I could actually attribute any of this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, nice link. Gladdens the heart. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Source query

What is the relationship between this source and saying that Singer does not support the cancer-secondhand smoke link? Apologies if I'm being dense. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Singer vs Lancaster

Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't see anything about Singer's suit against Justin Lancaster in this article. According to The Real Global Warming Disaster and The Deniers, Justin Lancaster, acting on behalf of Al Gore, accused Singer of misrepresenting Roger Revelle's role in helping co-author an article that was critical of human-induced global warming. Because Lancaster refused to withdraw his accusations, Singer sued and Lancaster issued an apology and retraction, which he later partially retracted. Gore then, according to Booker and Solomon then asked Ted Koppel to investigate Singer's sources of funding, to which Koppel allegedly replied, "There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore-one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White House in this century-[is] resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis." There is a section on this in the Revelle article. Should it be mentioned here? Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say definitely yes. I'm about to go offline so I can't do anything right now, and I'm anyway still trying to get up to speed. If you have material to hand, please feel free to add it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Old discussion and old text. Similar text was still there until 10 April 2010. Q Science (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you. One problem with this kind of issue is explaining it briefly enough so that it doesn't violate WP:UNDUE, but completely enough so that it gives both sides of the story. I'll look into it further and try to come up with some text that will hopefully pass muster. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend not restoring the Singer-Revelle-Lancaster material. In particular, under no circumstances should there be a link to the original depositions or testimony in the case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked Infotrac or ProQuest NewsStand yet for anything on it. Booker and Solomon cover the incident quite thoroughly in their books, but I can understand an argument that additional sourcing besides those two is desired. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I've found so far in Infotrac and NewsStand:

• Two articles/editorials in the National Review
• Two editorials by Singer in The World and I and Insight on the News
• An article in Reason
• Two articles in the Boston Globe
• An article in The Advocate
• An editorial in the Washington Times
• A column by Lawrence Solomon in the National Post
• An article in the San Francisco Chronicle
• An article in the The San Diego Union-Tribune
• Forty-one additional articles/editorials/letters to the editor in NewsStand under the search term, "Al Gore; Fred Singer"
• An interview with Singer that touches on the subject in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

I would say that there is plenty of sourcing to do a separate article on this topic and have a link to it from a small section in this article. Cla68 (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Further Reading

The "Further Reading" section is very large, and more than half of it seems devoted not to sites about Singer, but to his own writing. That seems definitely coatracky to me. I suggest to eliminate most or even all of those links. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm collecting them here because they tell the story of his career and the development of his views. Not sure what you mean by coatracky. I'll be using them to add to the bio. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be about Singer, not be a platform for his views. Those are all primary sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's about his life, his views, his career—everything that we can source reliably. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 13:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

About, yes. Parroting, no. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed this section. It just looks like spam. SV: if indeed I'll be using them to add to the bio. then keep them off in your userspace somewhere rather than using the article as a workspace William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly spam, i reverted you as there is no consensus for it`s removal. mark nutley (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

MN, blind reverting with your favourite mantra is hardly helpful. The discussion has been here for some time and you didn't bother contribute. The point is: why such a vast list? SV appears to be suggesting, above, that she is just using it as a workspace, which is Bad William M. Connolley (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Name

I can't find a reliable source that calls him Frederick (just WP and some mirrors). He's unlikely to be called that if he was born in Vienna, and most of the sources call him Fred, so I've changed it to that for now. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

If he was born in Vienna, "Fred" is a lot less likely than "Frederick" - possibly it was Friederich and was anglicised on emigration. He is listed as "Frederick Singer" on IMDB. The German national library has him as Sigfried and Fred (and by initials), as has the library of congress. If he is "Frederick", he rarely uses that name. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

William, this article was in very bad shape, and still needs a lot of work. It would be better if you didn't edit it given the previous problems and complaints, and adding that he's first and foremost a global warming skeptic is really inappropriate. [26] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is in terrible shape after your edits. It is full of things either uncited, or cited to Singer-self pub stuff, and repeats unverified claims by Singer. Please don't do that. If you can't do better, it would be better if you didn't edit this article. As to your request - Ive' already rejected it. I can only presume you're repeating it here in the hope taht someone else will notice it, which seems unlikely William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

After I reverted WMC's attempt to say Singer is a skeptic before we even say he's a physicist, WMC responded by adding the POV tag, removing material sourced to the New York Times, and adding six citation-needed tags to the lead. I've reported it to the climate change probation page, and requested that WMC be asked not to edit this article. [27] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I notice you've removed any ref to Singer as a GWS from the first sentence. That seems very odd to me. Do you really believe that aspect of his career is so non-notable? Personally, I think he is far more notable for GWS - all the argument here bears that out, no-one bothers argue over atmospheric phyicists - and that should come first. But even if you disagree about the order, it seems very odd to whitewash GWS entirely from the first sentence. Try googling Singer. Note the tagline of SEPP William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead should reflect the contents of the article. I don't see any appointments obviously related to "physics" beyond the early 1960s. Beyond that, the positions are related to "environmental science". Similarly, if you look over the last 20 years of his articles indexed by ISI, you'll see that they are mostly editorials and LTEs attacking climate change, peak oil, the link between UV B and skin cancer, the link between CFCs and ozone depletion... Little "atmospheric physics", lots of 'environmental skepticism'.

I have a second concern, and that's calling him an "atmospheric physicist". I seem to see that only in self-published sources. Third party sources call him a retired professor of environmental science. And looking at the last two decades of his output, that seems a lot more reasonable. Calling him an "atmospheric physicist" (and not an 'environmental skeptic') does not seem to be in keeping with the way that he is described by reliable sources. Guettarda (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, "atmospheric physicist" is mentioned nowhere in the body of the article. Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag / blind reverts by SV

I see the blind reverting is back [28]. Singer is far and away best known as a global warming skeptic. Whatever he did for science is long forgotten, however wonderful it may once have been. Reverting it out of the lede is whitewashing. And, as I've said before, he isn't an AP. He *was* an AP. He is now a retired AP William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me he's done plenty of work other than pertaining to global warming / climate chaneg. Yet you want to instantly have khim labelled for his views on global warming. Hmmm, interesting. Minkythecat (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted a pair of sockpuppet edits. To be clear, I have no opinion on whether either edit should stand, other than that the matter should be discussed here. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

@Mtc: yes of course Singer has done other stuff, though if you look you'll find that was all a very long time ago. But do you (like, it would seem, SV) think that FS's global warming skepticism forms such aminor portion of his notability that it shouldn't be mentionned anywhere in the first paragraph? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, this is now utterly bizarre. The first para lists a pile of skeptic books (Hot Talk, Cold Science (1997), and co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming (2007) with Dennis Avery, and Climate Change Reconsidered (2009)) but can't bring itself to say what he says himself: that he is skeptical of GW William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I've re-added the dreaded S-word, since no-one at all seems to think he isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I see that someone added a whole bunch of {fact} tags to the lede which looks awful. Some of this information can be sourced to the following page on NASA's web site.[29] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do look awful, don't they? Still, they do serve as a reminder that the article has a pile of unsourced statements. Which would you prefer: silent unsourced statements or cn'd unsourced statements? If you can find sources for them, then great - please ad them in William M. Connolley (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Note

Just noting here that I'm currently adding material that I can find about Singer in newspaper archives. The presentation may look a bit disjointed for now—as in "he did this, then this, then that," but hopefully once we have it up we can work on presenting it as a flowing narrative. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

I would like to add one sentence to the end of the lead—with in-text attribution—saying that Singer has been criticized for his position on global warming. So it will read something like "Singer has been criticized for this by a number of scientists, including Eminent Scientist No 1, who in 2010 wrote blah blah."

Can anyone direct me to the most eminent of Singer's critics on this issue, and some source material? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added this so we have criticism in the lead for now:

He has been criticized for speaking out against the mainstream position on this and other environmental issues, one researcher telling ABC News that Singer is what he called a career skeptic.

Sourced to this article. It's not ideal because ABC News cites Kert Davies, the research director of Greenpeace U.S., who isn't a neutral source. Also, Davies's academic background [30] is degrees in Environmental Studies from Hampshire College and the University of Montana. I'd prefer to find a scientist with a comparable background to Singer so that we can attribute in-text without it looking like an inappropriate match. But it's better than nothing for now, I think. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's worse than nothing. You've cited someone with little scientific expertise, and have misstated their views to boot. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Then help me to find a better source, please. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And before someone asks, RealClimate or any other partisan blog probably are not adequate sources. Cla68 (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that the commentary of a partisan source is adequate for disqualifying a Wikipedia editor? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are not allowed as sources in BLPs unless maintained by the subject, per WP:BLP. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

But an editorial by a partisan commentator, containing numerous factual errors and having an agenda against Singer, would be OK? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which editorial you mean specifically. If you mean Solomon, which isn't being used here, I'm not sure what your point is. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the question was simple enough. If you'd rather not answer, that's ok. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SBHB, what I'd really like here is just to build this page up so that it tells Singer's story, with no games on talk. I have no POV about it, and no POV about climate change, except that politically I'm almost certainly closer to WMC than to Singer. My sole purpose here is to try to improve the article. If you can help me with that, given that it seems to be your area, that would be greatly appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's not my area. My main interest is in the science of climate and climate change (along with music that most normal, decent people can't stand listening to). Singer's involvement developing the physical science of climate change was quite minor -- when he was a practicing scientist he was mainly an instrument developer -- see his CV. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing I'd particularly appreciate help with is in finding a heavyweight academic source in a reliable publication for a sentence of criticism in the lead about Singer's stance on climate change. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That could be a challenge. To be blunt, few of the actual scientists in the field take his views seriously enough to bother disputing them. (I could tell some interesting stories, but nothing that would be citeable...) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So who are his main critics? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. Again, most people in the field don't take his, erm, novel and imaginative views seriously enough to bother. Probably there are science bloggers who have deconstructed his stuff but Cla68 (somewhat reasonably) won't accept blogs. Try Monbiot or somebody like that if you want the mainstream media. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Blogs aren't allowed per BLP and Monbiot isn't really mainstream; it's fine to use him but I wouldn't want to single him out in the lead. If Singer's position really is untenable—and his position seems to boil down to the atmosphere being more complex than the climate models allow for—it's unlikely that not one single scientist has criticized him, or in some other way disagreed with him by name, in a mainstream publication. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Then go and find that publication. That's not meant as a snipe; if we were talking journal articles I might be able to help you out, but I don't give too much attention to rooting out such things in the mainstream press where the quality of reporting on climate change tends to be frustratingly poor. (A newspaper article I read a couple of months ago consistently confused "altitude" with "latitude" -- hey, they're the same except for the order of the first two letters, right?) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is [31], which gives an idea of how serious scientists take Singer's climate sceptic work - the words to look for are "fabricated nonsense". However, ABC names no names. As Boris wrote, few scientists engage outside the scientific arena, of which Singer hasn't been a significant part for years. From what I can see in the previews, Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt will treat Singer and SEPP from a social sciences perspective. Boris, Singer is listed as a co-author of A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions - hasn't that been ripped to shreds in a formal reply? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeating retired in the first sentence

Short Brigade has restored this. [32] Saying he's a professor emeritus means he has retired as a professor, so I can't see why we're repeating "retired" twice in the first sentence. It's also not true that he hasn't been professionally active for years; he continues to write and speak about his work. It makes the sentence look pointy, the writing poor, and it's verging on OR. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to me to be retired, except from his universty position, and professor emeritus is what that means. I don't think retired should say that in the lede. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't done research in atmospheric physics in many years, hence "retired American atmospheric physicist." My intent was to say that he has retired from atmospheric physics, though as you note he continues to write and speak on the general topic of global warming as well as other subjects so is not "retired" in the broader sense. If you can think of a better way to clarify his current status let's discuss it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a better way already in the sentence before you edited it. He is an atmospheric physicist (I added a 2009 NYT ref for that) and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. We have sources for the latter, but we're going to go the extra mile to check with the university that the sources aren't out of date. In all the articles like this that I've edited, introducing someone as professor emeritus of X is the standard way to introduce them, regardless of any other current status. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Per unanimous agreement across all reliable sources (see earlier discussion here), we will describe him as "an atmospheric physicist", not a "retired atmospheric physicist". There isn't a single news or book source out there that calls him a "retired atmospheric physicist". --JN466 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Affiliation

Why is Singer's older affiliation with the University of Virginia mentioned in the lede in preference to his more recent position at George Mason University? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

At which university did he spend the majority of his career? Does he have emeritus status with Mason? Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He was nominally affiliated with U.Va. from 1971-94 (though during the seven years I was in his department, he was seldom physically present). Don't know if he has emeritus status at GMU; some universities don't grant emeritus for soft-money positions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Misinterpretation or misrepresentation of sources

I have encountered a disturbing number of misinterpretations or misrepresentation of sources in some of the recent edits. For example I've already raised objections (and reverted) the contention that Singer has been "criticized for speaking out against the mainstream position," and I've also noticed that the text says "had Singer's design been heeded, the U.S. could have beaten Russia" when the source in fact says "if Dr. Singer's plea had been heeded by the U.S. could have beaten Russia." Please be more careful to properly represent the contents of sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please AGF, SBHB. If you see a way that source material can be presented more accurately, please fix it. As I posted earlier, I'm just looking through old archives and adding details from them, in the hope of getting a first draft up. It can all be checked and polished for accuracy and flow.

As for plea/design, is there a substantive difference in this context? The point is that they didn't take on board his idea and that this had a consequence, he says (or the newspaper says, but I assume he was the source). I'm also not sure I agree with your particular criticism of the ABC source (though I agree for other reasons that it wasn't ideal). He has been criticized for speaking out, has he not?

That's two examples you've given out of a fair bit of new material. You said there were a disturbing number. What were the others? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Two is disturbing enough, don't you think? Anyway there's a clear difference between "plea" and "design." The text implies that the problem was with not adopting the MOUSE design specifically. But "plea" could well mean that the govt rejected his broader arguments for space exploration, and in fact that's the meaning that seems most likely to me -- otherwise why not simply say they rejected Singer's instrument design? (And design of the satellite itself was never the main challenge to getting something into orbit; remember, all Sputnik did was send radio beeps.) It would be great if we had the full Baltimore Sun article available for review. As for "speaking out," that's simply not what the source says. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Two out of the large number of new sources I've introduced in the last few days, both of them arguable, is not a disturbing number, so I'd appreciate if you'd strike through that part of your post. Anything you see that's not quite right is because I'm handling material I'm not familiar with. Help tweaking it to get it right would be great.

Yes, plea could mean what you say or it could mean what I say. If you can fix that sentence so it summarizes the source better, please do. I did look for the full article but I only found a mention in an offline archive. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't fix it, as I think I'm already up to three fixes in the past 24 hours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a revert. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I bet you say that to all the boys... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And it never works. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

POV tag?

Could someone explain the reason for the POV, so that we can discuss and address the issues? I briefly scanned this talk page and it's not entirely clear why this article is tagged. ATren (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC) [33]

I believe WMC tagged it as he could not get his way in having Singer described as a sceptic in the first sentence of the lede :) Personally i think the article is look far better than it did due to SV and Cla working on it, i say lose the tag mark nutley (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I plan to give it a day or so, and if there is no response to this, I will remove it. ATren (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't hard, the text is above. The problem is SV's whitewashing William M. Connolley (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing of what specifically? ATren (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See text from 13:06, 13 May and edits preceeding William M. Connolley (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC, that version was 208 revisions ago. What specific issues remain in the current version? Can you please summarize the problems so that we can work to address them and remove the tag? ATren (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please just take the trouble to actually read what I wrote then. We're inching closer - SV now appears to admit that calling him a GW skeptic is acceptable, and calling him retired is acceptable, which makes the entire probation request rather laughable, but we're not there yet William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary source

We seem to be using this document as a source for Singer receiving $143,000 for preparing the NIPCC report, "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate." Apart from this being a primary source, which isn't appropriate for this kind of claim, I can't see that it says anything about the NIPCC. Do we have a secondary source for this? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do see now where it mentions the NIPCC. But see below. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Singer's Science & Environment Protection Project (SEPP) received $143,000 for preparing an NIPCC report called "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate," published by The Heartland Institute in March 2008 One of the refs for this is to a pdf at guidestar.org, i have no idea if they are reliable but this is not the issue. I have read through the pdf and the payments made in the invoice are to four people, not just singer. This money thing will have to go as the current source is not correct mark nutley (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confused. The document SV linked to above is the tax return for for SEPP, the organization. This is a public document, or, as it says on the form, "Open for public inspection", because SEPP is a tax-exempt organization. The Guidestar link is just a convenience link, you can also get the a copy via some process I don't care about from the IRS. But GuideStar itself is a tax-exempt charity and lives of reporting on charities, so yes, they are a reliable source. The document shows the $143,000 as income for SEPP (on page 8), as claimed in your (and our) quote. SEPP will very likely have disbursed this money to other people, quite likely including Singer. But that is a separate transaction. However, I suspect you simply misread page 5, which lists SEPP's officers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Have any secondary sources discussed this payment? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If this document shows that the cash was given only to sepp then why is it written in the article that it all is going to singer? mark nutley (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark. Please. Read the very quote you gave. It's not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry stephan, your correct, it says sepp got the cash, not singer. It`s just the way it is written makes it look like singer gets the cash, my fault for reading to quickly again :) mark nutley (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The $143,000 edit was added in January by User:Eli Rabett, [34] a little-used SPA run by someone who has a blog that opposes climate-change skepticism. It was added in violation of Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse of primary sources, which says primary sources should be used in BLPs only to back up secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SV is right Do not use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material this source can`t be used mark nutley (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No strong opinion, but you repeat your error above. It's not used to make an assertion about a living person. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This pdf has singers address in it, and his phone number. It can`t be used, is there a way to purge it from WP so it`s no longer accessible from here? even in history? mark nutley (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(comment moved from another section by SV) Can you two stop flirting and concentrate on what to do about (link removed) being in the page history? mark nutley (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed it from the article. Not sure what you mean about the page history. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I mean it can still be viewed, as it has singers address and phone number in it it has to be purged mark nutley (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem, Mark; I've seen them on a few documents published by him. Also, removing things from that long ago would be difficult. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it has to be done, we can`t have someones personal information here, Do not use public records that include personal details there`s a reason for that, there are a lot of loonies out there who could misuse such information, whom should i speak to about this being purged? mark nutley (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) That document is problematic. Please don't link to it again. It's probably too deep to be oversightable, but WP:OVERSIGHT would be the final call. Hipocrite (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Hipocrite, i`ll go post over there now mark nutley (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, i have e-mailed the oversight guys, hopefully they can rid us of this troublesome document mark nutley (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I also want to note here that the same SPA/blogger, Eli Rabett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was using other primary source documents that he had posted to a personal website and which he then linked to in his edit summaries of this article. This was just a few months ago, and several experienced editors/admins were editing the article at the time, but no one stopped him. It's depressing to see this, because it means people were paying the BLP policy no need. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Another source request

Ben, can we have a source that shows he is best known for his contributions to books on climate-change skepticism? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a general comment about sources. I'd be cautious about using online resources to judge what he's best known for. This guy's career spans many decades and it's possible the majority of reliable sources on Singer are in print format. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What offline source would you prefer? Certainly, the online sources are overwhelming. Every bio of him mentions it, and often starts with it. EG "Founded by atmospheric physicist and global-warming skeptic S. Fred Singer" sepp.org. This article itself makes it clear that his main accomplishments are in that field - look at his selected publications. Frankly, apart from the scepticism, would he even be notable? He's been present at some good stuff, but hard to attribute more than a few bits of it directly to him. Cheers, Ben Aveling 12:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

books about climate skepticism

Are the books cited in the lede 'about' climate skepticism, or are they examples of climate skepticism? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Since they are *by* Singer they are almost without a doubt examples of "skepticism": he is not a historian William M. Connolley (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Known for

Those of you who want to say he is known only for climate-change skepticism should read through some of the newspaper and magazine archives. This is from The New York Times alone, and these are only the ones in the article; there are several others. Also see Newsweek, Time, and U.S. News & World Report. If he had never involved himself in climate-change skepticism, he would still be notable, and indeed his skeptical views are of interest only because he was notable already.

Not about CC-skepticism

• Hillaby, John. "Astronauts soar in eyes of science", The New York Times, August 3, 1953.
• Schumach, Murray. "Planet Scientists Collide, Break Up", The New York Times, December 3, 1956.
• Sullivan, Walter. "Scientists Wonder If Shot Nears Moon", The New York Times, November 5, 1957
• The New York Times. "10 Young Men Cited by Junior Chamber", January 5, 1960.
• Osmundsen, John A. "Scientist 'looks' 40,000 miles out", The New York Times, January 30, 1960.
• The New York Times. "Physicist to Help U.S. Speed Weather Satellite System", July 6, 1962.
• Terte, Robert H. "A Dean for Earth and Space", The New York Times, March 15, 1964.
• Sullivan, Walter. "Scientists Trace Birth of Universe With Light Waves", The New York Times, December 20, 1965.
• Sullivan, Walter. "World's Space Scientists Take Look at the Future", The New York Times, May 19, 1966
• Singer, S. Fred. "Lessons of the Split in OPEC", The New York Times, May 21, 1977.
• Singer, S. Fred. "A Crisis for OPEC", The New York Times, March 31, 1981.
• Singer, S. Fred. "Against Sending Troops to the Gulf", The New York Times, March 7, 1984.
• Singer, S. Fred. "Intervening in the Oil Market", The New York Times, April 13, 1986.

CC skepticism

• Gleick, James. "Science and Politics: 'Nuclear Winter' Clash", The New York Times, February 17, 1987.
• Singer, S. Fred. "On Not Flying Into a Greenhouse Frenzy", The New York Times, November 16, 1989.
• Cushman, John H. "Industrial group plans to battle climate treaty", The New York Times, April 26, 1998.
• Woodwell, George M. and Holdren, John P. "Climate-Change Skeptics Are Wrong", The New York Times, November 14, 1998.
• Stevens, William K. "Global Warming: The Contrarian View", The New York Times, February 29, 2000.
• Jacoby, Jeff. "The jury is still out on global warming", The New York Times, August 20, 2007.
• Tierney, John. "Lessons from the Skeptics' Conference", The New York Times, March 4, 2008.
• Revkin, Andrew C. "Cool View of Science at Meeting on Warming", The New York Times, March 4, 2008.
• Revkin, Andrew. "Skeptics Dispute Climate Worries and Each Other", The New York Times, March 8, 2009.
• Zeller, Tom. "And in This Corner, Climate Contrarians", The New York Times, December 9, 2009.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are talking to the empty set. But see my parallel comment below. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, who has suggested Those of you who want to say he is known only for climate-change skepticism - this looks like willful misrepresentation by SV. People have been suggesting that we shouldne't be afraid to say that he *is* known as a skeptic - as well William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced and likely wrong...

I've just tagged "He is known for his work on space research, atmospheric pollution, and climate change". Is there a source for this statement? It looks wrong to me. For one, in the context it suggests scientific work in climate change, and his contributions there are marginal at best. For another, there is no source given what he is known for - I certainly did not know him for his work on atmospheric pollution. Why don't we drop the "known for" that's very hard to verify with secondary sources, but simply restate this as "He has worked in space research, atmospheric pollution, and is a well-known climate change skeptic"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The man with no rice (talk • contribs)

I have reworded the text to incorporate this suggestion, though I had to tweak a bit to make it flow with the following sentence. ATren (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Could either of you please respond to my last post in the section Misrepresentation of Sources? please mark nutley (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead (again)

I was just thinking we finally had a good lead after ATren's edit, [35] then WMC added more commentary to it. [36] Changing Global Environment is a book Singer edited, not wrote, and the thing about mainstream opinion is OR. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny how blind you are. is well-known as the author of several books which are skeptical of climate change, including is just as OR. But as you say it, I'll believe you, and have edited it to make him the editor. You could have done that, instead of complaining William M. Connolley (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, Singer did write the intro and one of the chapters. It makes for quite a fun read William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to our regularly scheduled program. The intro now reads in part "...and is well-known as the author of several books which are skeptical of climate change, including Global Climate Change (1989), Hot Talk, Cold Science (1997), Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (2007 with Dennis Avery), and Climate Change Reconsidered (2009 with Craig Idso). But much earlier in his career he edited The Changing Global Environment (1975), which follows the mainstream of the time in describing global warming as a likely potential problem." I have two problems with that. First, he is not particularly well-known as the author of these books (we have no source for that claim, either), but rather as an AGW sceptic in general. Secondly, I don't think the 1975 book is relevant for the lede. It's a normal scientific collection of papers, almost certainly with low print run and unknown outside specialised circles. Putting this up here distracts from more important stuff and is undue weight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your fundamental point - he is known a "skeptic", not an author. For the 1975 book, well, at least it isn't now listed as a skeptical work, which is better than when I found it :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not really true. He IS an author. Pleasure Mesh (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Selected" publications

Who "selected" these, and how? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

These were chosen by the Wikipedia community. This is an encyclopedia everyone can edit. Pleasure Mesh (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Stopping for now

I've decided to stop trying to expand this article so long as the situation with WMC continues. He's removing material from The New York Times from the lead, [37] adding his own unsourced opinion, [38] and he has now removed the entire Further reading section and the categories, [39] though the cats were all non-controversial, and the articles in FR all mainstream. This was combined with him accusing me of "writing lies" in edit summaries. [40]

There's no point in trying to improve an article with this kind of thing going on. I've left a note for the admins on the probation page, [41] but I can't see what else to do for now. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How about working with instead of complaining about other editors? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

...and applying WP:AGF. I'm fairly sure William didn't remove the categories intentionally. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That point works both ways. Minkythecat (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected

I have put the page under full protection for three days to give everyone the chance to reflect and discuss. --BozMo talk 12:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User subpage editing

Because of the problems on this page, I've started expanding the article at User:SlimVirgin/FS (started before the article was protected). Anyone interested in adding content is welcome to join me there or on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the current version reads well and seems pretty balanced, I don't see the merit of a personal fork. Forks like this always muddy the waters. Fences&Windows 22:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hard to understand

NIPCC

Does anyone know what this means?

In 2008, Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project completed the organization of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) as the culmination of a process that began in 2003. The NIPCC calls itself "an international coalition of scientists convened to provide an independent examination of the evidence available on the causes and consequences of climate change in the published, peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias and selectivity." The Science and Environmental Policy Project received $143,000 for preparing the report in 2007. The 2008 NIPCC document titled Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel of Climate Change, published by The Heartland Institute, was released in February-March 2008. Singer served as General Editor and also holds the copyright.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What part of it do you not understand? mark nutley (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Lots of people know what it means William M. Connolley (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Passive smoking

I'm trying to fix this section, but the part in bold is not very clear:

British journalist George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian in 2006 that in 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Ellen Merlo, vice-president of Philip Morris USA, the tobacco company, which mentioned Singer. Philip Morris had just commissioned APCO to fight the EPA. The memo said: "As you know, we have been working with Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..." Monbiot writes that an article written by Singer—"Junk Science at the EPA"—said that the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke were based on what Singer called a shocking distortion of scientific evidence, and that the EPA had had to rig the numbers in its report on passive smoking. It was this report, according to Monbiot, that Philip Morris and APCO had wanted to discredit. Monbiot added that he had no evidence that Singer had been paid by Philip Morris.

Which is the "Junk Science at the EPA" reported that Singer is supposed to have written? I can't find it anywhere but in the Monbiot article. Is it the same as the anti-EPA report that Singer reviewed for the Alex de Tocqueville Institution? (See first paragraph of this section)? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It was part of the discovery in the Tobacco trials and released as part of the Master Settlement Agreement. Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Great Global Warming Swindle

I'm wondering why this is mentioned. I've watched a bit of it and can only see him appear for seconds; or did he play a larger role? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

He is listed in the credits, but billed as 13th. Cla68 (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If only in it for seconds as claimed, is it a relevant enough appearance to be in the article? Did the documentary extensively use any of his research? Minkythecat (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

[42] William M. Connolley (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The onset of middle age may have worsened my admittedly poor eyesight, but looking at the linked diff and the Ofcom ruling, nowhere in the Ofcom ruling is Singer mentioned, nor the alleged distortion of comments by King - hence using the reference to claim "Ofcom upheld King's claim of unfair treatment in the program" is a false claim. In which case, why precisely was that text added? To attack Singer? Minkythecat (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you hunt down User: Cap'nTrade and find out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Given he appears to be retired... WMC linked that diff - bit curious as to why, given the claim made in the diff doesn't seem to stand up? Minkythecat (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bit curious in what way? He answer's SV's question. Q: "why is this in the article". A: "because someone put it here in 2008". Guettarda (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The 2008 diff has a reference that doesn't back the claim... hence it's utterly pointless bringing it up. So again, excluding the discreditted diff, was Singer's involvement within the program enough to merit a mention? If he only appeared for seconds, should it even be in the article? Minkythecat (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Err, I provided the diff as a point of information, no more. Please don't try to blame me for what is in it. As for only appearing for seconds: do you have a RS for that? Or, just how long does he appear for? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hardly blaming you. Just curious as to why it was linked. With regards to Singers participation being for seconds, someone else mentioned that - which is why I asked for evidence. Minkythecat (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough the reference should have supported the claim - but for some strange reason the html version of Bulletin 114 isn't complete. The pdf version of Bulletin 114 (same ref really) does support it.[43](see page 36-42)

Here's the relevant part of the complaint (page 37):

The closing words of the programme were from a contributor, Professor Frederick Singer, who stated that:

“There will still be people who believe that this is the end of the world – particularly when you have, for example, the chief scientist of the UK telling people that by the end of the century the only habitable place on the earth will be the Antarctic. And humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic – I mean this is hilarious. It would be hilarious actually if it weren’t so sad.”

Sir David King, the Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government, 2000 to December 2007, complained to Ofcom of unfair treatment in the programme as broadcast.

OfCom found that the statement was about Sir David King (without reasonable doubt), and that it was seriously misrepresenting what Sir David had said. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are some of the MSM reportings that mentioned this: The Independent,The GuardianThe Times --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, odd that - don't know why the web site omitted that section. Didn't Ofcom note that there were many reports of King's original comment which he failed to challenge with regard to the "only" comment? Certainly the breeding bit was mixed up. Minkythecat (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like Singer appeared prominently in that documentary, and I'd add that word to the sentence. If we could do it very concisely, I think it would be worth including something about a broadcasting-standards board (assuming that's Ofcom's role here) later finding that the documentary prominently featured Singer misrepresenting King's statements on global warming, as long as it's a pretty cut-and-dried, dead-to-rights kind of thing. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources appear to me to support including a mention of Singer's participation in that documentary. Cla68 (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected

{{editprotected}} Please replace ref #1 with http://www.virginia.edu/registrar/records/98ugradrec/chapter14/uchap14-2.28.html , which an authoratative reference as opposed to the back cover blurb of a book.

"Retired Faculty". University of Virginia. Retrieved 19 May 2010.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FFS. Does anyone have a problem with this totally non controvercial housekeeping edit? Speak now or... Hipocrite (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (minus the profanity, naturally, since I'm on civility parole and am a Good Boy) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is controversial though Hipocrite, please see the sections above mark nutley (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What is controvercial about replacing a dodgy source with a source that is official, exactly? Please be explicitly clear - I'm seriously considering filing yet another RFE about your behavior. Hipocrite (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But is it, any more? We now have an official statement from U Virginia that he is retired. Are there still people who claim he isn't? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected 2

{{editprotected}}

• In the lead paragraph, please describe the subject of this WP:BLP as "an American atmospheric physicist", not "a retired American atmospheric physicist"

• Note that this reflects unanimous agreement across all reliable sources available in google news and google books.
• There isn't a single news or book source out there that calls him a "retired atmospheric physicist" or, for that matter, a retired American atmospheric physicist. --JN466 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose without taking a positon on the merits. This actually is the controversy, unlike my suggestion, which is a non-controvercial housekeeping that everyone should be fine with. The proposer is aware that everyone will not be fine with his suggestion. Hipocrite (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: clearly controversial, and known to be wrong [44] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Attending admin please note that the current wording is not backed up by a single source, and is in fact unsourceable. The fact that Singer has retired from his job at the university does not make him "a retired atmospheric physicist". All published sources without exception are agreed that he is "an atmospheric physicist". The most recent source, from March this year, actually calls him "a leading atmospheric physicist" and discusses a report Singer is said to have authored in June 2009.

This is a WP:BLP. It is completely unacceptable for a BLP to have a statement in its lead sentence that is not just unsourced, but unanimously contradicted by every press and book source published about the man. Per WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." --JN466 18:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

www.dnaindia.com does not appear, on it's face, to be a reliable source. Is it frequently used by other, obviously reliable sources? Does it have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Good lord, take your pick. --JN466 18:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. WMC has provided a source listing him as a retired faculty member in a different subsequent specialty and you give no source stating he is non retired, just ones which do not mention retired? It does not look clear enough cut to edit under protection to me. The first sentence does show his age as eighty five so I do not think it gives a vastly different impression to include the word retired? --BozMo talk 18:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Found refs calling him a retired professor very easily so I think this falls under normal content disputes, not BLP exceptions. --BozMo talk 18:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Singer is retired from the university's faculty. He is not "a retired atmospheric physicist". He continues to work and publish as such. We can call him a "retired professor emeritus", if you like, but that would be tautological. --JN466 18:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is from yesterday. The man attended the The Fourth International Conference on Climate Change last Sunday. --JN466 18:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the conference program. --JN466 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It must be obvious to you by now that this isn't going to work. But anyway: the "conference" you're talking about is a joke: it is the "skeptics" get-together, not a real scientific conference. That Singer is going is indeed informative, but not in the way you think, and certainly doesn't prove he isn't retired. And to state the obvious (but only because you seemto have missed it): your source is not reliable William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I would not call a conference with around 84 eggheads as not "Scientific". Jayen is correct though, he is retired from the uni only, he continues to work so he is not a retired atmospheric physicist at all is he mark nutley (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is equally obvious that he held a session at the conference two days ago, and that your description of him as a "retired atmospheric physicist" is unsourced. --JN466 19:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

NYT calls him a retired physicist [45] as do plenty of other sources. I do not have a view on changing the article but this is not as clear cut as you make out. --BozMo talk 19:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• BLP noticeboard discussion here, as consensus on this issue seems impossible on this page. --JN466 19:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The BLP discussion seems to have run its course: [46]. Current consensus at BLPN is to remove the word "retired" from the lead sentence. Unless this changes, I will place another editprotected request tomorrow. --JN466 00:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't see the consensus at BLPN. Hans Adler's suggestion for "compromise language that neither says directly that he is retired or no longer doing research, but also does not suggest that he is still doing research" is a better approach although it will take more effort to reach agreement. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Forum-shopping to BLPN is unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection ends at lunchtime tomorrow. There is no consensus on the existence of a BLP issue worth editing under protection. If there is consensus for removing "retired" it is not clear consensus, and needs talking out. I suggest moving the discussion from BLP noticeboard (where this should not have been posted) to here. Perhaps one point to discuss is whether the word retired implies that one is no longer active, "active implies not retired" has an OR ring to it. I would have thought the more obvious reading of "retired" would mean "no longer being paid". But I am sure people here will reach and aimable consensus before editing the article. And he probably still is being paid I guess. --BozMo talk 08:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus on the blp board to me, and i support the change to remove retired. As pointed out on the blp board, you do not retire from your knoladge mark nutley (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Env skeptic?

Why is Singer now an Env Skeptic? GWS is backup up by multiple sources, not least himself William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition to climate change, Scheuerig documents:

• Downplayed energy crisis "The oil crisis is largely a media event" (1970s)
• "Free market environmentalism"
• Ozone depletion skeptic - "the effects of CFCs were swamped by volcanic eruptions"

From this article

• UV-B and skin cancer skeptic
• Secondhand smoke skeptic

Seems pretty well documented that it's a broader pattern that goes well beyond climate change. Granted, climate change is the one that got most important, and I'm happy to work on ways to improve the wording. Guettarda (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right - I was thinking hierarchically when I re-worked that bit. Weight is really more important. Guettarda (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Suboptimal, again

We're off in suboptimal-land again it would seem. He is known for his contributions to books about climate skepticism, including... - but there is no ref for this. It isn't a self-refing statement, and in fact it is wrong. He has made contributions to books about climate skepticism, including... is self-refing and correct, but not very notable. The elephant you dancing around is that what he is *known* for is GW "skepticism" / denial William M. Connolley (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've optimised it. I removed "The Changing Global Environment (1975)" - why is this believed to be skeptical? Singer was fairly sanemainstreamcorrected by BozMo early on; see [47] for example William M. Connolley (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

On which subject I find [48]. Such fun William M. Connolley (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dean of...

Copied from the probation page, since it seems SV regards taht as write-only: He also removed material that was sourced to The New York Times. Indeed I did. Here is the diff [49]. I removed what looked like hyperbole to me. Shall we google it to see if it is true? [50]. 1,120 hits, looks good doesn't it? But actually there seem to be only 11, and they are *all* reprints of the NYT article. Which is to say that *no-one* calls him the DoCC, except Revkin, once William M. Connolley (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarify: The large GHits estimate given by Google on the first page is off, the results run out on the second page (it shows 13 in total for me). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(removed comment ATren (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

I've removed it again. There is no consensus for it and its an entirely irrelevant detail. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@ATren: can you explain why you're re-adding something that we know to be incorrect, please William M. Connolley (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(removed comment ATren (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

[Revkin asserts that he is widely called the Dean of something. That maens, that re-treads of Revkins article can't verify that: what you need are uses of that phrase *before* Revkins article. But, there are none William M. Connolley (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)] Note: this comment later redacted William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors.

Journalists interview people, they don't simply do Google searches. The New York Times reporter could be referring to people calling Singer that when he spoke to them. The point is that it's a reliable source and it's an appropriate thing to have in the lead. Your disagreeing with a reliable source doesn't affect its reliability. See WP:V. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

could - many things could be. The article in question is not even about Singer, but about a conference. The appellation of Singer is a mere aside in the article. It's not supported by any other sources, it's certainly not widespread, or it would have left traces in Google, and it's not at all important. Even assuming it were true, it would fail WP:UNDUE not only for the lede, but for the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(removed comment) ATren (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you and WMC want to take a hand grenade into a phone booth and battle it out like real men, you're welcome. As long as there are innocent bystanders, tone it down. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(removed comment) ATren (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that it is you who "doesn't get it"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, if you ignore the precise (and somewhat unusual) formulation "climate contrarians" in the NYT article, you do get a few more matches, including one in a 2005 Rolling Stone article. [51]. There may be more such matches to be found, if one looks with a bit of ingenuity. While the precise wording may be unique to the NYT article, and the "often" may be open to question, the idea of calling Singer "the dean of" climate skeptics did not originate in the NYT article. --JN466 12:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a more useful contribution than all the bickering above. Maybe we can find a compromise such as putting a somewhat weaker statement (i.e. without "often") into the "Global warming" subsection? I still don't see it in the lede. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• What concerns me looking through the history of this article is how WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP have been largely ignored by several editors. From this point on I suggest we stick to them rigidly. It will cut down on a great deal of arguing about people's personal opinions. Anyone wanting to argue against the policies should do so on the policy talk pages, but this isn't the place for it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 12:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering how the other sources already cited in the article (and several more I found on the Web, see below) describe Singer in relation to climate-change skepticism. I've boldfaced the ones consistent with describing him as "dean of". I get the impression from all of this that when writers (that is, reporters and commentators of various stripes) attempt to describe Singer's role among opponents to AGW orthodoxy, it's consistent with "Dean of". The other descriptions don't seem to attempt to describe his role in that movement, but they're not inconsistent with "Dean of".

10 quotes/links:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Results: Nova (see little box near top) [52] Singer has been a leading skeptic of the scientific consensus on global warming. Daily Telegraph [53] an American atmospheric physicist Professor Fred Singer George Monbiot, 2006 [54] a maverick environmental scientist called S Fred Singer. ABC News (U.S.), March 2008 [55] Singer, an 84-year-old Princeton-trained physicist, is the grandfather of the global warming skeptics who dispute the established scientific consensus that global warming is real, that it is caused by the pollution humans are pumping into the atmosphere, and that it will be catastrophic if measures are not taken immediately. New York Times news article, April 1998 [56] Fred Singer, a physicist noted for opposing the mainstream view of climate science. George Monbiot, 2005 [57] one of the very few climate change deniers who has a vaguely relevant qualification (he is, or was, an environmental scientist). Andrew Revkin, New York Times, March 2008 "=&scp=48"fred singer=&pagewanted=print S. Fred Singer, a physicist who runs a group challenging climate orthodoxy I also did a Google News search for "Fred Singer" + "climate change" and F.S. + "global warming" and got: Book review, Washington Times, May 10 [58] Fred Singer, a pioneer of modern atmospheric science Blog by Peter Galuzka, Washington Post website, May 6 [59] S. Fred Singer, now a familiar face on the conservative speaker circuit San Diego Voice opinion/reporting article, May 14 [60] a group of skeptics long led by two prominent Cold War-era physicists: S. Fred Singer and Fred Seitz, who died in 2008. In her forthcoming book, Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes, a University of California, San Diego science historian, traces back to them much of the climate skeptic movement that Coleman champions.

Calling him "dean of" seems fair, and seems to reflect what Revkin says at the New York Times, what Rolling Stone says, what ABC says, what a critic like Naomi Oreskes says (at least as interpreted by the San Diego publication, she actually goes farther in assessing his importance). Isn't the essential concept here that Singer is one of the (or maybe the) oldest and most looked-up-to guy in his movement? It seems like an opinion about him that's worth mentioning, even in the lead, although it's basically a judgment call we could make either way. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that FS is one of the old-timers of the "skeptic" movement. It is rather ironic that you are agreeing with this, when just a little while back SV was edit warring to keep this out. Indeed, if you look at the probation enforcement request that SV filed you'll see two diffs in the what-did-he-do-wrong section; one of them is addig a POV tag (oh, the shame!) and the other is [61]: WMC edited the article to say that Singer is a global warming skeptic. So if we're all now agreed this is obvious, fine. But that he is often called "The Dean of..." is wrong, as the links above show William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You're substituting your own opinion for that of The New York Times. That's a violation of policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't put everything from every paper into this article. No, we use our judgement as to what is appropriate and what isn't. "It is in an RS, therefore it must go in" is the cry of the POV pusher through the ages. Don't do it. Now, let us try the point you're evading: we're all now quite certain that FS is a GW skeptic. So how do you justify a RFE based on two diffs, one of which says... that FS is a skeptic? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. I have difficulty parsing your writing. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have to be cautious here, as people have complained before about me being patronising. Is it the acronyms? Or the difficult grammar? I'm quite happy to try to be more comprehensible if you're finding this tricky. Are all the sentences confusing, or only some of them? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I often have difficulty understanding your writing, as well as the point you're trying to make. This—"we're all now quite certain that FS is a GW skeptic. So how do you justify a RFE based on two diffs, one of which says... that FS is a skeptic?"—means nothing to me. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, let me try expanding it: "we're all now quite certain that Fred Singer is a Global Warming skeptic. So how do you justify a Request For Enforcement based on two diffs, one of which says... that Fred Singer is a skeptic?" - how is that? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(a) You're misrepresenting the request, (b) you know how disruptive you've been, and so do most if not all of the editors who've interacted with you, (c) this page is to discuss article content. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In light of (c), are you willing to withdraw (b), along with the remaining slams you've made against other editors of the article? Could everyone -- and that means everyone, including me -- stop the bickering and get on with the article? SV's draft in her userspace is not too bad, though it relies too heavily on a single source (Scheuering) and contains a few things I think are uncomfortably close to WP:OR. But those things can be fixed (at least in principle). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Who have I "slammed" apart from WMC? I ask because yesterday you accused me of a "disturbing number" of mistakes with sources; that turned out to be two, neither of them mistakes in my view. So I'm wondering if the "remaining slams [I've] made against other editors" are going to boil down to one. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Before and the "not too bad" version. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about it here because you refuse to talk about it elsewhere (oh - and would you consider taking your own advice to "Please stop attacking other editors."). (a) and (b) are both false (you might want to try looking in a mirror). As Boris says - if you believe (c), try acting like it. So: to discuss the content of *this* page: we're all agreed - including you - that describing Singer as a Global Warming Skeptics is accurate and appropriate - yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We could replace the "dean of" sentence with

A prominent and longstanding leader among global warming skeptics,<Footnote: CBC> Singer has been called that movement's "grandfather" by ABC News<Footnote> and "the dean" of climate skeptics by Rolling Stone<Footnote> and others.<Footnote NYT's Revkin>

I think that's consistent with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Eventually, we can probably round up a better citation of Naomi Oreskes somewhere (her book, Merchants of Doubt, officially comes out next week). We could also add the Nova source (first one on my hatted list, above: has been a leading skeptic). It's significant that when various reliable sources describe his place in the "climate contrarians" movement, they make this point, and I think that makes it important enough to include in the lead. This point, which could be expanded a bit, also fits in well with the first sentence in the "Global warming" subsection: In the same 2006 CBC documentary, Singer was named as one of a small group of scientists who have created what CBC called a stand-off that is undermining the political response to global warming.[36] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's still undue weight, in particular for the lede, but at least it's no longer actively wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I still don't like it. Singer is very rarely called Dean of, or Grandfather of, anything. There is just no point in using that quote. Also, I'm not happy with "leader among" - I think that it is questionable whether he is that in reality, and in wiki-world you haven't provided a source. Why not just A prominent and longstanding global warming skeptic<Footnote: CBC> - what do we need the rest for? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

what do we need the rest for? This is the second time in 24 hours that I've come across an editor saying there's no "need" for something (another editor said there's no "need" for a picture of something in a "See also" section). If we're not talking policy violations or the like, needs just don't enter into the matter. I agree, not all of it is essential to the article (the part that WMC suggests does seem essential), but I think we're looking for "optimal" here. Singer is very rarely called Dean of, or Grandfather of, anything. It's hard to evaluate how often or rare that is, but I agree that there's a suspicious lack of ghits for Revkin's assertion (compare with Helen Thomas, doyenne of the White House press corps, or the late Hank Jones, "dean of jazz pianists"). My suggested language gets us away from "often" and "rarely" because it seems to me it's important that journalists from some prominent news organizations who are trying to give readers an assessment of his place in this movement have called him that (not always in those words, but similar ones). I think their judgment is worth including in the lead because it's an evaluation by people trying to be neutral as well as critics of the movement (and, if you believe Revkin, by people in the movement) about his influence and/or the respect given to him. How else would that be conveyed in a Wikipedia article? Wouldn't you want a range of sources for that? Why wouldn't that topic be important enough to cover in the lead? leader among I got that from the CBC sentence I quoted and from Nova's "leading" (Merriam-Webster def [62]), and in what I consider basically a political movement (a herd of independent minds), if you're influential and prominent that makes you a "leader" in the only sense that counts. Why not just "A prominent and longstanding..." see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (I just fixed the link for that). Also, it seems to downplay what some important sources are saying -- that he's one of the most prominent and longstanding. If we can get that idea across and not violate WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I'm flexible as to wording. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)--coupla small revisions -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Times characterization as "dean of the climate skeptics" belongs in the article. It seems to be accurate, and I don't think it should be excluded. In fact, I think it belongs in the lead, as that would appear to be why he is notable. While his record back to WWII is considerable, he is getting attention today because of his iconoclastic views on scientific subjects, in which apparently he is infuriating the scientific community by going against the scientific consensus. One nit on that sentence: for us non-Canadians, please state that "CBC" is or used to be known as the Canadian Broadcasting Company. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that "dean of" is appropriate for the lead. I removed it only to keep the peace. As for the CBC, we don't say British Broadcasting Corporation or American Broadcasting Company. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin/Fred Singer

I have a first draft of the article ready, and would appreciate some feedback on whether it's an improvement. There has been a fair bit of expansion. The article was 1859 words readable prose size. The current draft is 4368 words.

Changes are:

• I found a secondary source who has a chapter devoted to Singer that gives an overview of his biography, which has helped to remove the OR-ish feel to the article. Now many of the career details mentioned, the books highlighted etc, are from the source, not from us, until 2005 when she published. The source is Rachel White Scheuering. Shapers on the Great Debate on Conservation. Greenwood 2005. She's a freelance writer with a science background.

• I've checked all the sources for accuracy, and removed any that didn't say what the text said, or that were primary sources used in violation of BLP.

• I've added quite a lot of material from either The New York Times or The Washington Post, so that we're not relying on Singer's website for his career details.

• I've expanded early life, and added sections detailing his career moves and what he did in various places. I've also added a section on funding.

• I've expanded the public debates he's been involved in, editing what was there already for flow, expanded the passive smoking and the global warming sections.

What's still missing is a section on the libel action he was involved in, and we could use some photographs. I've written to a few people asking for some, but no luck so far.

Feedback would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Impressive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work, and well done for finding the Scheuering chapter. This looks like the makings of an FA to me, in due course. :)

• In the lead I would add a sentence after "Singer argues there is no evidence that increases in carbon dioxide produced by human beings cause global warming, that the temperature of the planet has always varied, and that if temperatures rise it will be good for humankind." to clarify that this contradicts the position of mainstream science, and then continue "Singer is an outspoken opponent ..."
• Singer recanted on the CFC debate later on and acknowledged he had been wrong; this might be worth adding (Scheuering).
• If available, I would propose adding dates to his consultancy work in the "Consultancies" section, so the reader can get a sense of the timeline.
• In the sentence "He believes in what Rachel White Scheuering calls "free market environmentalism": that market principles and incentives should be sufficient to lead to the protection of the environment and conservation of resources, a position that tends to lead to industry regulation.", I am not sure which position is meant in "a position that tends to lead ..."
• In the "Singer's position" section, I would add a sentence identifying his position as a minority position.

This draft adds a lot of valuable material on his early career, and reads like an NPOV article on a vocal and controversial scientist. I'm in favour of substituting it for the present version. --JN466 13:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added "in contrast to the majority scientific position" (or similar words) to the lead and Singer's position. The "industry regulation" point should have said industry deregulation (thanks for spotting that), but the sentence is better without so I've removed it rather than correcting it. The other stuff will take a bit longer to fix; and the consultancy section I'm minded to remove and merge into the funding section, but it will take a bit of work looking through sources. Here are the things I added. [63] Thanks for the input. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, well done. --JN466 15:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Good find on the Scheuering bio. Which raises an obvious question - if Singer is included as one of only 20 full-length biographies of "shapers of the great debate", doesn't that make a pretty strong case that he is more notable for his contribution as a climate contrarian than as a physicist? After all, even Aldo Leopold only receives mention in an appendix of brief bios). Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes the case stronger, but not strong enough, IMO. Being one of 20 doesn't seem enough to overcome his earlier career. That he's been called the "grandfather of" and "dean of" also makes the case stronger (as does the CBC reference in the lead), but again, not enough, I think. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said in the section above, I found quite a few sources in Infotrac and NewsStand covering his lawsuit with Lancaster. If I don't get a section written on it by tonight it may be awhile before I get to it because I'm departing on a business trip tomorrow and will be occupied with that for a couple of weeks. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that a reply to my comment? Guettarda (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I indented it so that it wouldn't make both of our comments difficult to read. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Guettarda (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Overall, excellent work, and we should replace the current article with it. A few objections:
  • In the 1953: University of Maryland section, I don't see much value in the paragraph beginning "In February 1958 he was congratulated in a telegram to the president of the university" and then extensively quoting the telegram. I think all that is better covered in about a sentence and without the extensive quote.
  • You've removed the passage about the Great Global Warming Swindle documentary. I think it's worth including something about that, mostly because Singer's comments about the UK chief science advisor were criticized by the UK broadcasting standards agency as misleading. To me, that seems like significant criticism that readers should know about. The Great Global Warming Swindle discussion above has the sources.
  • I'm now uncomfortable with The New York Times writes that his supporters and critics call him the dean of climate contrarians, in the lead. I made some suggestions about that in the Dean of... section above, but discussion there is stalled. I guess if there's a consensus for the current language, then that's that, but I hope other editors will review it. If it's true that Singer is called "the dean of" AGW skeptics, we'd find more than just Rolling Stone saying so.
  • This isn't actually an objection: At various points, you say Scheuering writes. I've always been reluctant to put attributions in the present tense. I'm going to reconsider it now, though. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• I just read the article draft by SV and support pasting it in its entirety over the current article. I think the sources support mentioning his participation in the Swindle documentary. In a few weeks if no one has already I'll add a section on his dispute with and lawsuit against Lancaster. Cla68 (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Some changes per the above:

• I removed "dean of climate contrarians," as there are now a few objections to it, and replaced it with "known as a leading climate contrarian." [64]

• I removed the quote from the president's telegram. [65]

• I re-added the section on The Great Global Warming Swindle, using one of the sources mentioned further up on this page, and included reference to the Ofcom ruling as it related to Singer. [66]

I've had some computer problems the last couple of days, so I've not been able to do as much research about this as I'd like to. When I'm back up and running, I'll help to add something about the Lancaster lawsuit if it's not there already. There are also quite a few Washington Post articles not mentioned, which I'd like to add later if there's anything new in them. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I can support this version unreservedly. Great job, SlimVirgin, great job. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Break

(edit conflict; comments may not reflect the latest version) Ugh, no. It's pretty poor. Not that the present article isn't bad, but even a quick glance shows all kinds of problems, including a referencing format which makes it impossible to determine which statements are supported by which sources.

Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an American atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia,

• No sourcing (anywhere in the article) for his DOB; the citations attached to this statement do not, in fact, support it
• No mention of "atmospheric physicist" anywhere else in the article; lead isn't supposed to include content not mentioned in the body of the article; only sources using the term are either connected with Singer or newspaper articles that show no evidence that the author did anything more than google Singer. Better sources like Scheuering (who SV references for other things) and Weart don't use this term. Why follow the lead of a weaker source and ignore the better source?

who is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology and, more recently, for his outspoken skepticism about climate change

• The only cited source that could possibly be used to support any of this is Scheuering. If she is the source for this, then much more weight needs to be given to his environmental "skepticism" - after all, six pages of the bio are dedicated to climate change, one each to oil and CFCs and maybe 2 pages to the rest of his career. He spent ~25 years (mid 40s to late 60s) working on satellites and related stuff, and ~40 years on environmental stuff, mostly "skepticism".

He is the author or editor of several books, including Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (1970), The Ocean in Human Affairs (1989), Global Climate Change (1989), The Greenhouse Debate Continued (1992), and Hot Talk, Cold Science (1997). He has also co-authored Unstoppable Global Warming (2007) with Dennis Avery, and Climate Change Reconsidered (2009) with Craig Idso.

• Again, none of this is mentioned in the body of the article, so why is it in the lead? Why is so much prominence given to books that are not discussed, in any way?
• None of this is sourced

Singer has had a varied career in the armed forces, government, and academia. After obtaining his Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1948, he worked as a scientific liaison officer in the U.S. Embassy in London, and designed mines for the U.S. Navy.[2]

• Singer worked on mine warfare for the navy during WWII, which is before he obtained his PhD.

He became a leading figure in early space research, was involved in the development of earth observation satellites, served as special adviser on space development to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and in 1962 established the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center. He was the founding dean of the University of Miami School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences in 1964, deputy assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, and chief scientist for the Department of Transportation. He held a professorship with the University of Virginia from 1971 until 1994, and with George Mason University until 2000.[3]

• As far as I can determine, none of the references support the assertion that he was a "special adviser on space development" to Eisenhower. What's the source for this?
• Calling him a "leading figure in space research" is puffery, and comes from an "contributor's synopsis" in Levy's book, which almost certainly originates with Singer himself.
• Equating his positions at UVA and George Mason is misleading - one is an actual tenured professorship, the other is a "research professor", a soft money position
• The George Mason position is not mentioned in any of the cited sources; this is especially misleading, since the sources are referenced immediately after that statement.

He has been involved in the global warming controversy since the late 1980s, and in 1990 founded the Science & Environmental Policy Project to present the skeptical position.[4]

• As far as I can tell, Scheuering cannot be used to support "since the late 1980s"
• Saying he founded SEPP "to present the skeptical position" is not a fair representation of Scheuering - she clearly says that he founded SEPP "to undermine the case for global warming preventative measures". She makes it pretty clear that SEPP was founded for advocacy.
• This really isn't a summary of what's in the article, so it shouldn't be in the lead

The New York Times writes that his supporters and critics call him the dean of climate contrarians,

• The NYT doesn't write, it publishes. Revkin wrote. And it seems a rather slim source to add to the lead. If it's not discussed in the article, it doesn't belong in the lead. Seems like pointless puffery.

and in 2006 the CBC named him as one of a small group of scientists creating a stand-off that is undermining the global response to climate change.[5]

• Other, more authoritative sources, like Scheuering, do a much better job of this
• Why "CBC named him"? The source, it would appear, are the writers of The Fifth Estate. Saying "CBC named him" is very poor writing style
• Again, where is mention of him being "the dean of climate contrarians" in the body of the article?

In contrast to the majority scientific view, Singer argues there is no evidence that increases in carbon dioxide produced by human beings cause global warming, that the temperature of the planet has always varied, and that if temperatures rise it will be good for humankind.[6]

• The bolded phrasing is lifted straight from the source, in the same context. There are copyvio/plagiarism problems here.
• Again, there are better sources that can do a much better job of this.

He is an outspoken opponent of the Kyoto Protocol, and has said of the climate models that scientists use to predict future trends that "models are very nice, but they are not reality and they are not evidence."[7]

• The cited sources do not support the assertion that Singer is an "outspoken critic of the Kyoto Protocol"
• Climate models aren't used to predict future climate; as far as I can tell, neither Tierney nor Revkin discuss "predictions".
• Is Tierney's blog an acceptable source for a BLP?
• What is the Revkin article being used to source here?

...and that's just the lead. Unsourced material, misrepresentation of sources, plagiarised material... No way that's acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The lede merely summarizes the rest article. It's ok to include information in the lede that is not in the main body if it is sourced. So, since the lede is a summary of the article as a whole, why don't you just write below what you think it should say? Otherwise, I think SV, me, and Mr. Barber are ok with it. Cla68 (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Three replies to G: (a) It's not correct that we may only mention things in the lead that are mentioned in the body; (b) he is called an atmospheric physicist in several of the cited sources, including in the footnote after the first reference to it (the Zeller NYT article); (c) I stuck closely to the Telegraph description of his position so that you, Stephan and WMC wouldn't accuse me of not representing it properly. So I didn't dare paraphrase, and there's a citation after the sentence. To call that "plagiarism" is unhelpful to put it mildly. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of nitpicks with the lead:

• The sentence "Singer argues there is no evidence that increases in carbon dioxide produced by human beings cause global warming," strikes me as odd. If you replaced "carbon dioxide" with "food" or "gold", would it still sound grammatically correct? I would put "the amount of" between "in" and "carbon".
• The quote "models are very nice, but they are not reality and they are not evidence." One of the fundamental skills of any scientists is recognising that the map is not the territory, which is pretty much what Singer is saying here. The Newtonian model of reality is not reality, neither is the Einsteinian, in a sense they're "just" models. The interesting thing is not whether or not we have a nice model, but to what extent that model corresponds with reality. As such, Singer is just citing a basic facet of science. I doubt it would be hard to find an opponent of Singer's that agrees with him completely with regards to this quote. It's a nice quote no doubt, but it's not in any way distinctive for Singer. I would not include it in the lead.

I'll be looking at the rest of the article as well. Gabbe (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. We could add "increases in the amount of carbon dioxide produced", but I wonder if it's necessary. As for the quote, I felt it was a succinct way to explain his position to the lay reader. By saying it's not reality, he's saying it doesn't correspond to reality, in his view. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Is he? My point is that we all know he thinks that the models don't correspond with reality—but it isn't obvious if that is what he means by that specific quote. He doesn't say "the models don't correspond with reality", he says "the models aren't reality". There's a big difference between them; the latter statement could just as easily be uttered by someone who feels that the models do correspond with reality. Regardless of whether one feels that a certain model corresponds with reality or not, it is a truism that the model isn't reality (or evidence, for that matter). Gabbe (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but no one would argue that a model was the reality. In that sense I think it's clear what he's saying. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"I think it's clear what he's saying" is pretty arguably OR, especially when others don't think it's clear. FWIW from a scientific perspective reminding us that "[models] aren't reality" is one of Singer's more valid points. (Saying that "they are not evidence" is is in contrast very obviously wrong; every scientific field depends on models. But that's another issue for another day.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No, since no one would argue that a model was the reality is, in fact, true, as a matter of elemental sanity, it can't be OR to conclude that the obvious alternative meaning isn't there. It doesn't matter that the latter statement could just as easily be uttered by someone who feels that the models do correspond with reality. Because he's obviously making the point that there's something lacking with regard to climate models ("models are very nice, but they are not reality and they are not evidence.") I think his meaning is clear on that point, especially in context, even if his language is a bit garbled. We could tweak the wording just before the quote to make it clearer to readers that Singer is talking about what he says are inadequacies in the climate models. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously a copyvio - surely you know that changing just a couple words in a sentence while leaving it mostly unchanged is considered an infringement of copyright. But it's also plagiarism to pass someone else's words off as your own. And no, you can't blame other people for "forcing" you to violate policy. That's absurd. Guettarda (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio/plagiarism is when there's no attribution. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

False. Using copyright material constitutes an infringement of copyright even if the source is acknowledged. And attempting to pass off someone else's words as your own is plagiarism. Even if you reference the source. Guettarda (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

@Cla68 - the lead should summarise the article. This lead does not. I have pointed out a few ways in which the lead of this draft differs in major ways from the article. But hey, that's just a small part of the problem. I think the sourcing, weight and plagiarism issues are much more important. Guettarda (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE: Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, -- so: not necessarily. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"Not necessarily" what? Guettarda (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, with respect, you seem to be grasping at straws. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I withdraw this comment; it's not constructive. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Grasping at straws? To ask JWB to explain what a cryptic comment means is "grasping at straws"? Seriously? Guettarda (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to your point, If it's not discussed in the article, it doesn't belong in the lead. I'll try to rephrase my response: Not necessarily, Guettarda: Since WP:LEADCITE states "the lead will usually repeat information also in the body", that implies that sometimes the lead will NOT always repeat information also in the body. Is that clear? Sorry for any confusion. Usually I think I err on the side of stating the obvious. This time I erred the other way, I guess. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Draft

Following SmokeyJoe, Jayen466, JohnWBarber, Cla68, and myself, I'm going to add the draft to the page. We can continue to discuss ways to improve it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. I incorporated the recent changes made by Naaman Brown (the addition of the artificial Phobos hypothesis and the changes to the FR section). SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I pointed out clear problems with the text, including factual inaccuracies and misrepresentation of sources. Despite that, you chose to insert the text, errors and all, into the article. I find your lack of concern about accuracy very worrying. Guettarda (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Blogs?

What makes John Tierney's blog a reliable source for a BLP? Guettarda (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a column published by The New York Times. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's not. It's a blog published on the New York Times' website. Not the same at all. Guettarda (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Allowable under WP:BLPSPS: Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Tierney's blog meets all the criteria. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence that it's under the newspaper's full editorial control? That's not the impression I get from reading the NYT blogs. Tierney's fact-checking, for example, does not seem to be up to NYT standards, while much of what Krugman says in his blog suggests that he is free to post without running past an editor. Guettarda (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on Krugman for negative material about any BLP other than as a source of Krugman's own opinion, and as far as I'm concerned that should apply to all columnists. But NYT columns and blogs are very obviously meet the WP:BLPSPS standard: so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Full doesn't mean prior checking before publication. It means the writer's ass is grass if they're too sloppy or don't correct themselves, and that's the policy of the Times. See here [67]: All articles, columns, editorials and contributions in the newspaper are subject to the same requirements of factual accuracy. It would be odd if this didn't apply to their website. Also, Columnists are expected to do original reporting. Some travel extensively. Op-Ed columns are edited only for style and usage, not for content. For the Times, the word "reporting" must imply a commitment to accuracy. Tierney, incidentally, was a reporter and an Op-Ed columnist for the Times before his current column and online work for the newspaper. Note also what they say about even their editorials: Editorials are based on reporting, often original and in-depth, but they are not intended to give a balanced look at both sides of a debate. Again, "reporting" implies what is said, even in an NYT editorial, must be accurate, but since they're "not intended to give a balanced look", you wouldn't want to rely on them as sources for what amounts to an evaluation, especially in a BLP, especially a negative evaluation. I'd rely on them for facts like, say, a birth date or other simple facts, especially if there were no better alternatives. Here, I'd rely on Tierney, a longtime science journalist, to get a quote right and in context. If he were wrong, I'd expect a correction to be mentioned at the bottom of that blog post, and there isn't one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda needs to provide evidence that a column calling itself a blog on the New York Times website is not a regular column that's under the NYT's editorial control. I can't imagine why a news organization would assume legal responsibility for material they have no control over, but if that's the claim we need some strong evidence rather than personal opinion. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Erm? Actually it would be the other way around. Those wanting to use a reference/source would have to demonstrate the reliability of that reference/source. If as you assume that blogs in newspapers are always reliable, then there is very little reason for the description clause in BLPSPS.- --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the description clause in BLPSPS refers to. If you mean the part referring to newspaper "blogs," it comes from WP:V, and it makes clear that these columns aren't really blogs. If you want to change that, you'll have to argue for that change on the policy page, not here. As things stand, material published by The New York Times is deemed reliable, and where it's an opinion piece—whether they call it "opinion" or "column" or "blog"—we can use in-text attribution where it's contentious. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it makes it clear that some are covered. It is your responsibility to demonstrate that this is one of the cases. When a reference/source is challenged, then it is the one who wants to include who has the burden to convince/demonstrate that the reference/source is up to par - not the other way around. And that is the policy. And apparently the policy section in WP:V is now called WP:NEWSBLOG, which states exactly the same thing as WP:BLPSPS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So why did you recently defend the repeated insertion of RealClimate to this very article, even though there is no question that RC doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in this context? Why is RC OK while NYT is disputed? ATren (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion you are referring to was not about content about the person - this content is about the person. Different things, different context. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim, didn't you just recently defend RealClimate as a source? How can you defend RC but dispute NYT? ATren (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Still not getting involved, but I think Kim is pretty clear in your diff, which dosen't say what you say it says. Hipocrite (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. ATren (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, you are incorrect and Hipocrite is indeed correct. RC is a reliable source to information where the writers are published experts. And that is exactly what i wrote. I even specifically stated that in a case, such as the one here with the NYT blog, RC wouldn't be a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP and V both make clear that individual and group personal weblogs are never reliable sources for BLPs, even if the authors are published experts; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." So why did you argue that RealClimate was an RS for this article? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 13:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you may want to read what it was that i wrote? Because you are repeating what i said. The place where you go wrong is in assuming that BLP is defined by the article - and not by the context. A statement such as "According to RC the Sun has had little influence on climate in the past 20 years" is not a BLP statement. A statement such as "According to RC, Singer is wrong" is a BLP statement - and for both statements this is the case no matter in what kind of article it appears (biography or regular article). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP and V both make clear that self-published sources are never allowed as sources in BLPs, no matter who maintains them and no matter what they say. The aim is twofold: first to make sure that no material is sourced in that way, but also to make sure no URL to self-published material is added to the page, unless it's to a website controlled by the BLP subject. The aim of that policy provision is precisely to avoid the situation that occurred here, where an editor maintains a blog on which a living person is criticized, only for material from that blog, or links to it, to be added as sources to a Wikipedia article about that person.

I can't understand how several experienced editors could have defended that situation—and you are still defending it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this has been discussed several times on BLP/N, and what i said is correct (it even has been turned around for RC is in specific (example)). BLP is defined by the material and context, not the article. You cannot no matter where it occurs use SPS's as material on BLP's - but a BLP is a biographical information, ie. about a living person. Expert sources (even in SPS's) can be used for non-biographical information. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me where the policies say or imply that? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Its clearly demarked in WP:BLP, and it is the reason that BLPSPS contains the sentence "...as sources of material about a living person...". BLP is about persons and material about persons. It is not about what kind of article it appears in. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Where the writer is a professional and the newspaper has editorial control over the blog, it's a reliable source. If you're telling us The New York Times is publishing material over which it has no editorial control you'll need to show strong evidence.

I don't see the point of this kind of talk-page exchange. The point of having policies is to avoid exchanges like this. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs}

The assumption challenged is: "...and the newspaper has editorial control over the blog". You haven't demonstrated that. That the NYT is a reliable source is without doubt correct. That blogs run on the NYT site by definition are RS's is by no means without doubt. Please endeavour to understand what people are saying. The burden will be on you to demonstrate that it is - per WP:V. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. That's what I said. We need evidence that it's under the editorial control of the Times. Policy says we can only use it in a BLP if we have some evidence of the sort. Guettarda (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted back[68] until such time as SV can establish the reliability of the reference. SV: Please see Wikipedia:BLP#Restoring_deleted_content. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This is very disturbing. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be, this is BLP material (about the person, and what the person has said) after all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim, let me get this straight, calling someone's publication "dishonest" and "fabricated nonsense" is not directed at the person? Really? So who is doing the lying and fabricating if not the BLP himself? How can you defend those diffs sourced to RC and criticize a NYTimes reference? To be clear, I think removing the NYT quote is defensible, but what is not defensible is your simultaneous claim that this NYTimes ref is disallowed while RC is OK, even though policy and practice would consider the NYT more reliable. It is this kind of inconsistency in applying policy that causes NPOV problems on these pages. ATren (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Note: the "fabricated nonsense" was not sourced to RC, but rather ABCNews; I apologize for misreading it. The "dishonest" quote, however was sourced to RC. ATren (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you talking about something that has absolutely no relevance in this particular discussion? That isn't the RC link that i'm talking about. You are changing the goal posts. Read what i wrote once more please. [you may also want to notice that it isn't realclimate who was the reference to the "fabricated nonsense" quote - but instead ABC news[69] (which is a regular journalistic piece, not a blog (news or otherwise)) - you are misrepresenting here]--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(you are correct about the "fabricated nonsense" sourcing, I have struck it) ATren (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim, are you advocating using RealClimate, a self-published advocacy site, as a source in this article, but not a NYTimes blog? Do I have that right? Cla68 (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Am i advocating using Realclimate? Interesting, i can't seem to find where i do. In fact this particular discussion is about an NYT blog. Reading through this discussion may be merited? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You defended the use of RealClimate as a source. Not ABC News as you write above. Here on December 3, 2009 ATren removed material that called Singer's work dishonest, and that was sourced to RealClimate, a blog partly controlled (at that time or formerly) by William Connolley. Stephan Schulz restored it. He was reverted. You restored it. You were reverted. Atmoz restored it. He was reverted. You restored it again. You were reverted. William Connolley restored it. He was reverted. WMC restored it again. He was reverted. Atmoz restored it again. Then the page was protected by 02 on the version containing the BLP violation.

The above is bad enough. But now you are arguing that a New York Times blog is not an RS, when it's quoting Singer saying something entirely harmless that explains his views. That discrepancy requires an explanation. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly does Realclimate have to do with Tierney? This seems to have become a: "I can't argue about Tierney - but i can try to smear the persons who are arguing against me" thing. There are talk-page contexts surrounding each of those links - i suggest that you check them. The text that starts with "Michael..." has a context in this thread[70].

Now can we get back to the issue at hand - which is quoting Tierney? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the issue at hand. Please explain the stark discrepancy between you strongly supporting the use of a self-published blog for the claim that Singer's work is "dishonest," yet opposing the use of a New York Times blog for an entirely harmless quote from Singer himself. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Realclimate is not the issue here - Tierney is. There is very little similarity between the two ... In the RC case, it was a scientific assessment about a report (a gray area because Singer is one of the authors), and in the Tierney case it is about whether you can quote a blog for direct BLP material: What a living person is supposed to have said (a BLP red area). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No SV, this is very disturbing, as is this. I have asked for evidence that the link meets the requirements of our policy on BLPs. Anything that says that Tierney's blog is under the full editorial control of the NYT. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just asking for something more than just an assertion. You know, some evidence to support your claim. Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What makes matters worse is that something equivalent could probably be sourced from somewhere that unequivocally meets the requirements of policy. Guettarda (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with inclusion of the quote from the Tierney blog. If he was saying something that could be construed as knocking Singer I would feel differently. But he is saying something fairly neutral about the man, and it is useful analysis. It seems permitted by policy, why not allow it? I mean, are you guys going to fight about every sentence in this article? ScottyBerg (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the point - I don't think it's permitted by policy. And since it makes Singer look a little duplicitous, yes, it should have a better source. Guettarda (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

But the policy on blogs seems to exempt newspaper blogs. Tierney is the science writer there, so he is an expert and this kind of expert blog is also exempt.If this were a lesser newspaper, or more sensational in tone, I'd certainly join you in opposing this. I also don't find it terrible from Singer's point of view. See, to me, the problem with this article, apart from its excessive length, is that it doesn't give a sense as to why we have this article here. Two significant summaries of his importance to the skepticism movement ("dean of" and now this), both from the Times, seem to fill that gap. Now, if Tierney is identifiably prejudiced or one-sided I'd feel differently. Is he? ScottyBerg (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It only exempts newspaper blogs if they are under editorial control - and that is what we have to establish or work around. I haven't yet had time to watch Singer's presentation during the Heartland conference - but if the quote is there - then we'd have both context, and a reliable source for the quote, solving at least some of the things here - then we'll get to the weight etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can't argue with that. Personally I find it inconceivable that the Times would allow anything from its staff on its website without full editorial control. Surely that can be established. However, I'd would just posit that if the Tierney blog can't be used, then there are very few if any blogs, including newspaper blogs, that could be used in any BLP. That principle would have to be uniformly applied. I notice that there is a discussion above on the use/nonuse of RealClimate. It may be less confusing to reorganize the discussion to make it easier to follow. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Blogs in general, under editorial control or otherwise, as well as opinion columns and regular columns, are in my opinion generally poor sources for biographical material. Where we are talking material that is peripheral, but pertinent ,to a biography, its different. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no distinction in terms of BLP between calling a person dishonest and calling his work dishonest, yet you felt a self-published blog was okay for the latter. I'm concerned that experienced editors are basically inventing policy on the hoof to retain material they personally like and remove material they personally dislike, even with the article under probation, and even as there's a related request at RfAr. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Except of course that the article you are talking about didn't call Singer "dishonest" - it called a specific report dishonest (which is quite mellow compared to what it was called in the ABC article), and that it was accepted when discussed at the time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kim as a matter of general practice, though I'm not sure that Tierney is unacceptable. Quoting from blogs, or not quoting, needs to be consistent, as SlimVirgin points out. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Tierney is not an expert on Singer. RC are experts on the scientific content of a report. Report != BLP. Personal quote == BLP. The difference is not even subtle. The first is a red-zone, the second is a gray zone. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim, thank you for reminding me why I no longer even try to edit these articles. ATren (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim, with respect, you seem to be inventing your own policies here. Nowhere does it say that Tierney, a NYT journalist, needs to be an expert on Singer (or anything else) when he's published by the NYT. Nowhere does it say that self-published experts are allowed to call living people's work dishonest. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with SlimVirgin generally in this. I wouldn't go so far as to agree with the "inventing" comment, as I'm sure that Kim is dealing with this in good faith. To back up for a moment, I really have a lot of trouble understanding what's so darned bad about the Tierney comment. It's so inoffensive. I also would suggest that going to the mat on every single syllable of this article is just not going to accomplish anything. I say this as one who has generally been on Kim's side in the few articles where we've met. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that we shouldn't/mustn't use opinion articles as sources to 3rd person information (BLP). That goes for information that is bad/good/in between. Tierneys information is directly personal - its a quote - thus the red zone. In the RC case it's a peripheral BLP issue - not directly about the person (gray zone). Who takes the blame if Tierney quoted from memory and got it wrong? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times takes responsibility when one of its staffers misquotes someone (and when that quote stays on the website despite the subject doubtless seeing it and having a chance to correct it if wrong). Kim, this is not a fruitful discussion. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• And just what do editors here think full editorial control is supposed to mean? I addressed the issue several yards up at the start of this thread. To repeat myself, "full editorial control" essentially means that the newspaper takes responsibility for the factual accuracy of what is said. With The New York Times we have not only the recognized reputation of the newspaper to make us comfortable with that as a source, but their own damn description on a special page of the Times website stating that what is published by the newspaper, either by its regular staff or those who are otherwise brought in to contribute (such as op-ed columnists) are expected to be factually accurate. What on earth would WP:BLP be concerned with other than that we have sources with responsibility and without malice supplying us with what we tell readers are facts? Any interpretation of what BLP requires must be consistent with that. "Full editorial control" means the writer is responsible to the publication. The Times grants columnists full leeway in their opinions, no leeway in reported facts -- like a quote. If what we were using Tierney for was his evaluation, it would be treated as an opinion sourced in-text, by name, to Tierney. This is a fact reported by a professional writer working for the newspaper that we cite as an example in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. No proof is needed that the Times has "full editorial control" of Tierney's blog. I gave it [71] in my post at 19:15, 23 May. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In wikipedia the editorial oversight is the important part - since we are not scanning the newspapers for retractions/corrections whatever. In this case the NYT link that you are giving, indeed tells us that there is no editorial oversight here:

Op-Ed Column: An essay by a columnist on the staff of The Times, reflecting the opinions of the writer on any topic. Columnists are expected to do original reporting. Some travel extensively. Op-Ed columns are edited only for style and usage, not for content. Columnists do not submit their topics for approval, and are free to agree or disagree with editorial positions.

So it is per our BLPSPS policy not acceptable for information on third party. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that Tierney is functioning as an op-ed columnist, but as a reporter with a blog. JohnBarber is correct, I think, and his link states explicitly that the standards of factual accuracy cover all content, including op-ed pieces. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The blogs we are talking about in the context of BLP that are considered reliable, is just the old Op-Ed columnists. And the NYT link tells us that columnists aren't subject to editorial oversight. [and my quote in small is from that page, and says that there is no editorial oversight of such] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "editorial oversight"? What do you think happens when any writer, news or opinion, gets "editorial oversight" over "original reporting" (which is what Tierney's quote is)? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Editorial oversight in the context here, is basic fact checking, checks for liabilty and other editorial practices that regular journalistic articles go through. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim, you know how certain editors around here go on and on about their professional scientific backgrounds? I feel it only fair to warn you that you are discussing this with someone with a professional journalistic background consisting of more years than I want to recall of newspaper reporting, and I've got a little news flash for you: Newspapers do not check facts for original reporting. Not as a rule, not even The Times, not even for a news feature without immediate deadline pressure. It is not possible to do so. On multiple occasions, before cell phones were widespread, I have rushed from an event to a phone booth to call in quotes, facts and even sentences that I would write in my head and an editor would type, on deadline, from a disaster, speech, court hearing or conference (such as the one Tierney covered). Occasionally, I did the equivalent of "Stop the presses!" but not with a major metro daily. Does it sound reasonable to you, Kim, that John Tierney would have gone from science magazine to science magazine to the Metro desk of the Times to the op-ed page to the "Science Times" section and not been able to get short quotes right and in context? Kim, thousands of Wikipedia articles rely on New York Times and other newspaper accounts, including articles that we could characterize as "breaking news". Now, it doesn't matter whether this particular passage came from an Op-ed, straight news story or any kind of column, because the newspaper demands factual accuracy for all of it. As a longtime NYT subscriber, I know that Tierney's blog (it's now defunct) would sometimes appear in the "Science Times" section of the paper, where it was treated like a "News column" (described on the same page where you got the quote above). The "Science Times" section of the paper regularly refers readers to its online material, including online columns, and regularly quotes from them. Nothing in the newspaper or its website indicates the newspaper treats the journalistic standards of the website any lower than the dead-tree edition, which makes sense.

On another point, Kim, the Real Climate material that you and certain other editors supported some months ago, attacked the "NIPPC" report. Another Times writer, Andrew Revkin, described that report (from the same conference Tierney was at) as A centerpiece of the meeting was a short report by 24 authors, led by Dr. Singer, provocatively described as the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.” Am I correct in thinking that this is the same report referred to in this passage in this BLP article: Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt called the 2008 NIPCC document a "dishonest 'assessment' of the science of climate change."<FOOTNOTE>Mann, Michael E.; Schmidt, Gavin (November 28, 2008). "Not the IPCC ("NIPCC") Report". Realclimate.</END FOOTNOTE> Now, Kim, I'm perplexed by your reason to want to exclude Tierney's unremarkable quote of Singer with this source that you wanted to use for that passage, a clear BLP violation. Have your views evolved? Is that it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

John, thats all quite interesting, and it does explain why MSM so often gets things wrong. And why people who have been interviewed often say that they are misquoted... But that doesn't change anything. Wikipedia is assuming that editorial oversight is basic fact-checking and other editorial stuff. (you'd have to change this at WP:V). It does not to my eyes give more credence to MSM that it should work this way... quite the opposite in fact. But then again, i'm still living in a fantasy world, where at least the Danish news-media, is still checking basic facts (ie. is it possible for this to happen? was she really his wife? Did he really go to that school? etc). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There may be special cases where newspapers have done fact checking in a limited way, but I've never heard of it. If they do that regularly in Denmark, it would be a national peculiarity. Are you arguing against use of any newspapers as sources if they don't regularly do fact checking? One passage at WP:V implies that newspapers do fact checking (making WP:V in violation of WP:V?), but the policy, and all Wikipedia practice, obviously allows nearly all newspapers as reliable sources, and that's far stronger than an implication in a phrase. In other words, you are wikilawyering (Bullet 2). Further, as has been pointed out above, in this very article you've supported a blog as a source for an attack on Fred Singer (it certainly was an attack, as anyone can see, and saying that they only attacked Singer's report is disingenuous: S. Fred Singer and his merry band of contrarian luminaries (financed by the notorious “Heartland Institute” we’ve commented on previously) served up a similarly dishonest ‘assessment’ of the science of climate change [72]). [73] That edit occurred both before and after you criticized use of a WP:NEWSBLOG in another article, [74] [75] so I'm not finding your arguments reflecting a consistent principle in your interpretation of policy. They're just strained. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, see pages 4 and 6 of this document, [76] regarding how the Times "fact checks". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The NYT does do fact-checking, although they haven't got a dedicated section for this at their news-desk (they have in their magazines and some of the other desks), but copy-editors and back-editors are thus tasked with also doing fact-checking.[77] So your description is not entirely correct. Besides that there is of course all the editors (back-field editors, exec editors,...) involved in a story[78]. So i guess its not just little backwater Denmark. And you are missing the point: WP:V is the issue on fact-checking - the argument of whether fact-checking exists or not - is something that should be taken up there. As a rule, we will assume that basic fact-checking and editing does happen, because that is what WP:V assumes. (ie. it deminishes the reliability of the NYT from the view of WP:V, but doesn't remove the requirement for editorial oversight on blogs/columns in WP:BLPSPS).

I suggest that you strike your personal attacks here, and the assumptions of bad faith that you are expressing. Its not amusing, and reflect badly on your arguments. Its all very interesting how you get my motives and thought-processes wrong - but its not allowed in article-talk-page space, you will have to save it up for an RfC/U or an enforcement request. I am not in the business of trying to attack Singer, which should be obvious to you, since it is against both policy and my personal moral-code. We just apparently disagree about the reliability of a particular reference in a particular situation. Do please again note that the ABC's questioned scientists were significantly less cordial about that report. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Where did I comment about your motives rather than your arguments? If there's a principle or major distinction you're using to interpret WP:BLP, especially WP:NEWSBLOG that led to different results in these cases, it would be useful to know that in discussing the content of this article, since the matter has come up here twice with you and may well again. The Times' fact-checking consists of mentioning that it is something the individual writers are encouraged to do and, when "as time allows" copy editors should check "verifiable, error-prone facts" and then check back with the writers, but nothing is required, so that isn't prior editorial control. In any event, the Wikipedia-wide established interpretation of WP:V and use of the Times as a source is not something you're going to change on this page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit out of sequence here. One thing I wanted to clarify is that even though the Times says that its accuracy standards include letters and op-ed pieces, I don't endorse using them as sources in bios of living people. I was just raising that point in support of using Tierney's mild remarks on Singer. Kim, I can't speak to news media practices but can say that in the U.S. at least the media's reputation for factual accuracy is not good. The bio standards seem to acknowledge that, but do not, I believe, prevent use of the Tierney blog in this context. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So we've gone around in circles about Op-Eds and things like that. we've had a whole plethora of unsourced speculation. But lets get back to the only germane point - does anyone have anything that says that blogs hosted by NYTimes are under the full editorial control of the newspaper? Guettarda (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying, Does anyone have anything that says the blogs hosted by NYTimes are written by human beings and not Venusians disguised to look like human beings? You're grasping. How would a Times staffer writing on the Times website not have his work there under the full editorial control of the newspaper? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the NYT states this on their own page? I will quote again[79]: "Op-Ed columns are edited only for style and usage, not for content. Columnists do not submit their topics for approval, and are free to agree or disagree with editorial positions.". Blogs/Op-Eds and columns are not sent to the backfield-editor (or other editors) for approval. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim, I disagree with your lumping in blogs and op-eds. A staff-written blog would be within the reporter's scope of employment, and is a totally different thing than an op-ed that are written sometimes by foreign potentates, experts and others not under Times control. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is someone suggesting a NYT staffer might misquote Singer on the NYT website, refuse to correct it when asked by his editors, and there would be nothing the NYT could do about it? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not how BLP works, you can't use poor sources just because no one "...is suggesting" that it might be wrong. You should know better. This is a direct quote from a LP, attributed to a blog/column/opinon article, and that is a red-zone in BLP. Let me quote: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim, you've defended the use of a self-published blog on BLP grounds, but are opposing the use of a New York Times blog, also on BLP grounds, though BLP and V (and common sense) suggest the opposite of your interpretation. This is the kind of discussion that makes editors believe there is a small AGW cabal who support each other no matter how outlandish the editing, no matter how odd the interpretation of policy. You're turning people against your editing who would otherwise not be bothered, so you're shooting yourselves in the foot somewhat. Please consider that. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 13:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry SV, i have explained what i see as the difference is between the two situations - you chose not to believe them, which is your personal perogative - but that doesn't make your assessment correct (nor does it mine). But you are required by policy to assume good faith, and to refrain from commenting on the editor rather than the content. And by that you are the one who is shooting yourself in the foot.

And the main point here is, even assuming that you are correct in your assessment of an earlier edit, that doesn't make the current assessment of a rather different issue (Tierney) correct. You are arguing by fallacy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Kim perhaps you can help me out here, i currently have chriso hipocrite and WMC saying a blog in salon.com [80] is a reliable source, but here we have a few editors saying blogs hosted by newspapers are not reliable without proof that there is full editorial control, would you be good enough to let me know who is correct in this please?

I'm really loathe to get involved here because it's providing positive feedback to poor behavior (not by any of the participants), but my understanding of Wikipedia practice is that regardless of what policy says right now, what we do is allow newspaper-blogs BLPSPS status without a deep evaluation of the editorial control gobbledygook, unless, of course, the newspaper blog is justplainwrong. Just an observation. There, now I'm involved. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I would think that the content of the blog would also be taken into consideration. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I believe we have a consensus here to keep the quote in the article. I won't be responding to any repetitive points here (I apologize for doing that already). Let's move on and quit wasting time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hold on there, sir. I don't even know what quote you are talking about. Hipocrite (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I hereby place it here for your inspection, my dear sir: [81] Feel free to review the discussion, and if you have new facts or a new argument to bring up, or if you would like to change your mind on what you've just said at 19:45, feel free. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of tags

This edit removes tags without correcting the underlying problems

Singer has had a varied career in the armed forces, government, and academia. After obtaining his Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1948, he worked as a scientific liaison officer in the U.S. Embassy in London, and designed mines for the U.S. Navy. (emphasis added)

Yet one of the cited sources, Scheuering, clearly says that Singer worked on mines for the navy during WWII, and before completing his PhD. Removal of the tag without fixing the problem is clearly inappropriate

founded the Science & Environmental Policy Project to present the skeptical position

and yet, as I pointed out before, Scheuering clearly says that he founded SEPP: "to undermine the case for global warming preventative measures". You are free to disagree with Scheuering, but you can't twist her meaning and still continue to use her as a source. Guettarda (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Scheuering says he founded it "to fight the growing consensus on global warming" (p. 116). Guettarda, please stop insulting other editors. You may disagree with certain wording, and that's fine, but it's not fine to accuse others of misrepresentation and plagiarism, and there's no point adding multiple tags to the lead. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so she uses both phrasings. But that still doesn't using her as a source for your wording. It's one thing to try to cast Singer in as favourable a light as possible - that's an editorial decision. It's quite another to attribute your spin to a source, not when the source doesn't support your spin. Stop blaming your actions on other people. Guettarda (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And trying to pass other people's wording off as your own is plagiarism. Plain and simple. Guettarda (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired and maybe I'm not understanding something here, but what is the substantial difference between "to fight the growing consensus on global warming" and SV's to present the skeptical position? Isn't it essentially correct? Was the group founded in order to fight the global warming consensus in some other way than to present the skeptical position? I don't see how SV's wording is "spin" or an attempt "to cast Singer in as favourable a light as possible". And please just explain your objections without the antagonism. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For one, it suggests that there is "the skeptical position" when there is not one, but several (if you can call them positions): "There is no warming", "warming is natural", "warming is natural and unstoppable", "warming has stopped" (at least the last two claimed by Singer personally, [82][83]), "warming is harmless", heck, even "there is no greenhouse effect at all". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition to what Stephan said, Scheuering clearly says that SEPP was created for advocacy, and with the clear goal of preventing the implementation of policies which would reduce greenhouse gas production. The goal is economic - that limiting energy consumption would produce economic dislocation. This is, in Scheuering's account, one of the major drivers for Singer, dating back to the Carter administration. None of that is present in this article, of course, and I realise that without reading Scheuering it wouldn't be apparent. But for someone who did read Scheuering, this wording is (IMO) a pretty obvious misrepresentation of her account. Guettarda (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, I asked for a response without the antagonism, this wording is (IMO) a pretty obvious misrepresentation of her account is antagonistic. Again, please drop it. It makes it more difficult for me to approach the matter with an open mind, and I didn't even write it, so I can imagine that it's going to make it far more difficult for SV to constructively react to your objections. SV obviously put a lot of good work into this, and that doesn't deserve a bad attitude in response -- not if your goal is the same as Wikipedia's: a good, collaborative, civil environment. Ultimately, if kept up (and it's been going on for a while) it gets to the point where it's disruptive. Let's avoid that. Your point about Scheuering's description and Stephan's point about there being no one skeptical position both sound reasonable, but I'm concerned about a describing a group Singer founded as simply "anti-" something because that sounds POV. Even if Singer once described it that way, I'd prefer a neutral, formal, noncontentious description. I'm open to suggestions. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not antagonistic, it's a simple statement of fact. Scheuering described SEPP in a certain way. If we're going to cite Scheuering, we need to fairly represent what she has to say. Is it POV? Of course it is - everyone has a point of view. But NPOV isn't about presenting "neutral" accounts - it's about fairly representing notable and germane points of view, without giving undue weight to any one point of view. The question then isn't POV, it's WEIGHT.

On the question of how to deal with things - if you have better ways of dealing with problematic editors, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts (on my talk page). But tolerating that sort of behaviour undermines the credibility of the whole project. Guettarda (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not antagonistic, it's a simple statement of fact. I guess I'm objecting to the word misrepresentation [84] and problematic editors when all we're justified in doing in commenting on SV's edits is limited to the strengths and weaknesses of those edits, not the editor. You know the forum where you can go to make a case that an editor undermines the credibility of the whole project or even otherwise acting disruptively. You also know that you are making accusations about motive that lack evidence, therefore WP:NPA applies (see here, Bullet 4). If you really think that a collection of nitpicks is the "serious evidence" that must justify "serious allegations", take it to the proper page. Otherwise, I remind you that WP:GSCC specifically mentions NPA and you look liable. Now, I'd rather discuss the article on the article talk page. Let's stick to that. WP:WEIGHT is not the point -- in this context it would involve evaluation of several POV sources disagreeing on a subject. We're not even close to that I guess I need to do my own research on what an NPOV description of SEPP would be if no one else will provide it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no comment on motive. Just on actions. Guettarda (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Again. Although her edit summary says this is in the Tierney article (which, to begin with, as a blog is a dubious source for a BLP) nowhere does Tierney label Singer "outspoken opponent of the Kyoto Protocol". In addition, of course, Tierney appears to get it wrong when he confuses projections with predictions. But then, of course, he's just blogging. Guettarda (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just being ridiculous. This is just silly. No, he did not work as a liaison before he obtained his PhD. Is it really that hard to check your sources? Guettarda (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And this is even more unbelievable. It's not Singer you're plagiarising, it's Louise Gray. Saying "Singer says" doesn't absolve you from passing off Gray's phrasing as your own. Guettarda (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to you with this kind of point, so I'm just going to stop. The Telegraph journalist was telling us what Singer said at a conference. I wrote Singer said X. There is no need for quotation marks in a case like this, because there's in-text attribution and a citation after the sentence.

It's important to stick to the same wording because otherwise you'll object that we've deviated from what the sources said. So we can't win, except by turning the article into a quote farm, which is what often happens in very contentious areas like this, but it's not a good thing and very much to be avoided. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"I wrote Singer said X". No, Louise Gray wrote that. You copied her words, and passed them off as your own. That is plagiarism. Guettarda (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You have called me or my editing silly, ridiculous, pretty poor, a misrepresentation, plagiarism, a copyright violation, absurd, worrying, spin, and unbelievable. You're adding tags to the most obvious of things, including that he is an opponent of the Kyoto Protocol, and his date of birth, which is in several sources, including sources you say you've read. Okay, point taken. Perhaps you could let others weigh in now. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I called it silly to replace one factually incorrect statement with another. This edit is silly. Guettarda (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing is an infringement of copyright. You changed only a handful of words from Gray's article. Not enough to avoid a copyright infringement. Guettarda (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that you wrote something when you're using someone else's words is plagiarism. Guettarda (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You have misrepresented sources. You have, for example, attributed "He is an outspoken opponent of the Kyoto Protocol" to either Tierney or Stephens, and yet the statement appears in neither source. I have documented various misrepresentation of sources. Guettarda (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I pointed these errors out before you pasted the material into the article. You ignored my comments. It wasn't until I tagged the article that you made any attempt to fix these problems. Most of them still stand, yet you have chosen to repeatedly revert the tags, rather than deal with the problems. Your ownership of the article is unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think this is my last response. The source was the Telegraph. [85] It says: "Speaking before the conference, he [Singer] said there was no evidence that the increases in carbon dioxide produced by humans causes global warming. He said the temperature of the planet has always varied and even if temperatures do go up, that will be good for humankind.

The article says: "In contrast to the majority scientific view, Singer argues there is no evidence that increases in carbon dioxide produced by human beings cause global warming, that the temperature of the planet has always varied, and that if temperatures rise it will be good for humankind." Cited to the Telegraph. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Cited, yes. But the fact that it was copied almost word for word from the source was not acknowledged. A single word was replaced[86]. That's not paraphrasing, that's not putting it in your own words. You're up to three reverts on this article. Three reverts. To defend not putting quotes around a quotation. Mind boggling. Guettarda (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Those involved should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Ayres#Plagiarism_Controversy pause and think. Naaman Brown (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Good example. Guettarda (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Addition of tags to the lead

I feel that citation-needed, POV, or dubious tags are being added to the article in a way that's almost WP:POINT. Since May 15, William M. Connolley and Guettarda have added 14 tags between them to the lead alone: three added by WMC, three added by WTC, one added by WTC, six added by Guettarda, one added by Guettarda.

It would be appreciated if points could be raised on talk instead of tagging. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if points could be raised on talk instead of tagging. The points were raised. At length. You chose to ignore them when I raised them. So I marked them in the article. And you kept reverting every attempt I made to edit the article until you hit the 3RR. Guettarda (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been responding to the points, both here on the talk page, and by editing the article. What I'm saying is pointless, except to deface the article, is the tagging. Adding 14 tags to a lead is unacceptable. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerns raised: 06:43, 21 May 2010. Text pasted in (without addressing any of the concerns) 05:26, 22 May 2010. That's almost 23 hours later. I added seven tags, not 14. And what's "unacceptable" is adding text that badly riddled with problems, especially since you had been informed of the problems, and chose to ignore them.

I tried to deal with the problems here, before you pasted the text into the article. You refused. Guettarda (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And note the section above this one. I tried over and over to get you to discuss any of this. Instead, you chose to revert. Guettarda (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if points could be raised on talk instead of... As G says, this is deeply ironic coming from you. But anyway: Singer is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology <full stop> is wrong. Singer is (currently) know for his GW denialism; you can argue perhaps that he is, or was, also known for other things; but not even to *mention* it in the known-for sentence is unacceptable. And: who says he is currently an atmospheric physicist? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Very true. Lost sight of the big picture while trying to fix the small. The fact that he's one of 20 people who gets a chapter is Scheuering's "Shapers of the Great Debate on Conservation" because of his "environmental skepticism" makes it pretty clear that's a top reason why he's notable. Hope this change helps. Guettarda (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

1967 predictions

Just one quick point on the section dealing with his Washington Post article: why is so much space devoted to that? I see this in both the SlimVirgin draft and this one. He made a number of predictions that seem, in retrospect, to be a bit on the overexuberant side. So what? Reading this quickly, strictly as a layman, I got the impression that we're needling him. Must that section be so long? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I really liked that section, but I just like predictions anyway (especially old ones). It didn't strike me as negative, just interesting and maybe insightful about his outlook. In 2008 Singer told Andrew Revkin "I don't make predictions"! [87] All the same, it's not very important. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was interesting too, but I didn't understand why it needed to be so long. If he had been right it would have been one thing, but since he was wrong I didn't get the point, except to needle him. This is my impression from a casual reading of this bio.ScottyBerg (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)