Talk:Lawrence Solomon

My view

Now, I must preface this with that I rarely agree with WMC. I also don't agree with reverting of banned users simply because they are banned or anything else (as I feel it dodges away from content policy issues). However, I believe that verifiability and reliable sources would side with -not- calling him an environmentalist. The term, as used on Wikipedia, contains two dimensions - the first is of an activist in environmental issues and the second is a scientist active in environmental issues. Normally, the first group is labeled "environmental activist", so environmentalist would imply a scientist or someone with a scientific background. This cannot be determined by newspapers or the rest, as anyone can be described as a "scientist" in a newspaper. It must have verifiable credentials in the field, as the connotation would be that there is such. Thus, WP:V and WP:RS would require that this individual is not described as an environmentalist unless there are some sources on his status as a scientist (I haven't seen or found any to that effect). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This is why I considered ChildofMidnight's proposal "Lawrence Solomon (born 1948 in Bucharest, Romania) is a Canadian author and columnist whose work has focused on environmental issues and energy" to be an acceptable compromise as it avoids the term 'environmentalist'. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 16:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If the word "environmental issues" is problematic, it may be from its vagueness. Obviously, he worked on global warming related issues. It could be broken down into more specific topics. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is a bit vague. But I think we'll have a hard time finding a consensus about the wording. (If it is up to me, we don't need to mention it at all.) SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 18:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"so environmentalist would imply a scientist or someone with a scientific background" - Sorry but that is total BS. The word implies no such background. Here are some objective sources:

[1], [2], [3], [4]

--GoRight (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hell, even the Wikipedia definition makes no such claim of academic credentials or even of a scientific background:

"An environmentalist is a person who may advocate the sustainable management of resources and stewardship of the natural environment through changes in public policy or individual behavior. In various ways (for example, grassroots activism and protests), environmentalists and environmental organizations seek to give the natural world a stronger voice in human affairs."

Your claim is baseless even on Wikipedia. Indeed, it stresses the political side of things, not a scientific one. --GoRight (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

GoRight, please reread the first paragraph. I started off saying there were -two- kinds of environmentalists. Since the kind that you linked to definitions for can easily be called environmental -activists-, with their own term, then it would be best to preserve this term for the scientists or those who take a scientific approach. On your first link, there is an add for "Environmental Testing". Such testers are commonly called environmentalists from where I am from. They are more than just geologists or biologists. It is a mixed fixed of environmental science. Furthermore, your last link doesn't verify what you want it to say. You did forget dictionary.com, which starts off saying "an expert on environmental problems." A scientist is an expert and would be the only real expert. I hope you ignored this last link simply because you didn't know better and not because it didn't suit your point. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, please read a dictionary. I have provided many such references for your use. You do not get to redefine the English language to suit your needs. There is no such convention as you claim on Wikipedia or it surely would have been reflected in the Wikipedia definition of the word. It simply is not. Ergo, this claim of scientific background being implied by the word "environmentalist" is a figment of your own imagination and nothing more.

"then it would be best to preserve this term for the scientists or those who take a scientific approach" - Why, there is no need to reserve anything. The existing definitions of the words are perfectly sufficient for our purposes. More importantly, there is no such already existing convention as you implied above, at least not that you have demonstrated.

"Furthermore, your last link doesn't verify what you want it to say." - It most certainly does, it make no assertions or implications of scientific background.

"which starts off saying "an expert on environmental problems"" - Expert does NOT equate to scientist. There are experts in Constitutional Law, they are not scientists. There are experts in theatrical production, they are not scientists. Your claim is completely baseless on its face. Please see [5], [6], [7], and most importantly expert. None of these imply scientific backgrounds, and even if they did it would be completely moot because this is obviously a minority definition given the sources already reviewed.

"I hope you ignored this last link ..." - I didn't ignore anything. I just didn't visit that site.

--GoRight (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"please read a dictionary" I read dictionary.com and quoted the definition that verified my view. It was number one. "no assertions or implications of scientific background" - then read the last link, as it would not apply to this subject in any manner that you would have wanted it to apply to him: "a person who accepts the theory that environment is of overriding importance in determining individual characteristics" That is definitely not the case. "a person working to solve environmental problems, as air and water pollution, the exhaustion of natural resources, and uncontrolled population growth" Also not the case, as this is not "activism" but "solving", which implies trying to make technology or produce actions that reduce this instead of merely promoting environmental issues. "Expert does NOT equate to scientist." I think we would have to disagree, because any expert in a scientific discipline would, by definition, have to be a scientist. Sorry, but I laid out my justification above and I cannot see this person being described as anything more than an "activist" or a "journalist". Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"I didn't ignore anything. I just didn't visit that site." By the way, "ignoring" would be "not visiting". >.< Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"By the way, "ignoring" would be "not visiting"" - No, this is clearly incorrect. Ignoring implies I was aware of the Dictionary.com definition and consciously chose not to include it here. Not visiting it implies that I was not aware of it. Your WP:ABF accusation that I intentionally "ignored" it aside, I tend to prefer Meriam-Webster over Dictionary.com so I usually start with them then pick a few others. Dictionary.com didn't make the random hit list. In the end, though, it is also clear that the Dictionary.com definition is outside the mainstream of such definitions as evidenced by the other entries we have reviewed. Oh, and it still doesn't imply any scientific background as you claim. You are clearly incorrect on that point. --GoRight (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"I was aware of the Dictionary.com definition " Or, it could have simply meant that you were aware of Dictionary.com and didn't bother to look, hence, you ignored dictionary.com. Is it bad faith to ignore something? No. So, your accusations are over the top. Many people ignore dictionary.com when looking up definitions. You also ignored the Oxford English Dictionary. I would have mentioned it but not everyone has online access to the full thing so there is no use referring to something that you might not have access to. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And I think I have already proven a strong argument as to how an expert in a scientific field is a scientist. Other people can decide if they agree with me. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't proven anything. And, BTW, environmentalism is not, generally speaking, a scientific discipline. Your claim that scientific credentials are required to be an expert in environmentalism can be dispatched with a single counter example. I am quite certain that there are experts in Environmental law, for example. I am also quite certain that no scientific background is required for them to practice their trade. There is also no requirement that someone who is properly called an environmentalist be an expert at all. There are plenty of everyday ordinary people who are environmentalists, in fact I probably have several living just down the street.

"Is it bad faith to ignore something? No." - Completely wrong question. Is it bad faith to accuse someone of ignoring something? Yes.

"You also ignored the Oxford English Dictionary." - Your use of the word ignore is flawed. I am not "refusing to take notice of" anything. I have responded to your Dictionary.com reference. Bring on the Oxford one and I shall do the same. The fact that I haven't provided an exhaustive list of every possible dictionary reference known to man does NOT imply that I am "refusing to take notice of" the ones I left off. That's simply absurd. --GoRight (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I would have gone to get the Oxford definition as well, except I don't see the need to pay for the privilege. [8]. --GoRight (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't list it. "Ignoring" is not an accusation of any kind of impropriety. This isn't a competition or a game. I put up a definition. You said there was no basis. I showed at least one example. And if you haven't heard of a class called "Environmental Science", then I don't know what to tell you. Normally, it is a combination of geology and meteorology. It is also called "Earth Science". Ottava Rima (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"And if you haven't heard of a class called "Environmental Science", then I don't know what to tell you." - Sure, but are you actually going to assert that "Environmental Science" is the only discipline under "Environmentalism"? That would be absurd. You are the one claiming that scientific credentials are REQUIRED (look it up in the Oxford) to be considered an expert in environmentalism. I dispute that claim and have already presented a perfectly applicable discipline, Environmental law, which clearly HAS experts and yet does NOT require scientific credentials.

Are all environmental scientists also experts in environmentalism? Debatable but for this discussion let's assume yes. Are all experts in environmentalism also environmental scientists? Clearly not. Ergo scientific credentials are NOT required to be an expert in environmentalism as you claimed.

Earlier I claimed "expert does NOT equate to scientist" and you replied "I think we would have to disagree, because any expert in a scientific discipline would, by definition, have to be a scientist". Is a lawyer specializing in Environmental law a scientist? Clearly not. Are they an expert? Clearly so. Ergo the term "expert" does not equate to "scientist" as I claimed earlier. In other words, there exist environmental experts who are not scientists so the set of environmental experts is not equivalent to (i.e. it does not equate to) the set of environmental scientists. This should be plainly obvious. --GoRight (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - " but are you actually going to assert that "Environmental Science" is the only discipline under "Environmentalism"?" Um, I stated above that Environmental Science includes biology, ecology, meterology, geology, etc. Sigh. Do you even read what I write? And I would not say a lawyer in environmental law is an expert in environmental science. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And with this I believe my point has been made. Moving on. --GoRight (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This argument is in that dull middle ground where it's neither substantive enough to be taken seriously nor silly enough to be amusing. Be ye either cold or hot. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Middle grounds tend to be the best and the safest. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You must do what I say because I'm all powerful

You've all forgotten, e.g., this [9]. Now do what I say or call Solomon a liar William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, William invokes here the liar paradox. But did he say you were all powerful? :) Alex Harvey (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Misc problems

Cleary, we've decided that the FP "bio" (read: autobio) isn't a reliable source, because we aren't including "is one of Canada's leading environmentalists". So it is not at all clear that it should be used as a source for anything else. So:

• if indeed Solomon was an advisor to President Jimmy Carter's Task Force on the Global Environment (the Global 2000 Report) in the late it *must* have left some trace in the world other than his autobio. Someone who wants that line to stay should find such a trace.
• Solomon opposes nuclear power based on its economic costs - clearly he opposes nukes; but "based on economic costs" appears to be speculation. The source given, the FP bio, doesn't say so. Is it in [10]? I can't see it. Or [11]?
• and has been critical of government approaches and policies used to address environmental concerns - ditto.

William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Being a source for whether he is an environmentalist is one thing. Being a source for his opinions is another. I think the National Post bio certainly passes that bar.

Agreed, it is a RS for his opinions. I was thinking of facts, like the Carter TF William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

2)The Nuclear Power issue was discussed above as I recall. Feel free to add a citation needed tag if you think it needs to be better sourced or dispute it.

Done so, but you've fixed it. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but now you've broken it again; Solomon opposes nuclear power based on its economic costs,[1][2][3][4] - if any one of these is reliable, it will do. If it needs 4, then none are reliable and all should go William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

3)I think this is fairly well established in his writing on sprawl, global warming, on nuclear power, etc. Are you disputing that he is critical of established mainstream approaches on these issues?

It may well be establsihed by his writings. I haven't read them, so wouldn't know. I'm asking for a cite :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

4)If the word alarmist is put in quotes, that already indicates it's something he said so the additional wording isn't needed. I noted that above and I don't think anyone commented or objected. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of words above. I haven't read them all William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that I've only recently had an opportunity to do any work on the article. The things you're questioning are in the opening paragraphs, where basic information is contained, so hopefully as the body of the article is expanded with content and citations these cites won't be needed or can be moved there. I would appreciate a more collaborative approach. You seem to be challenging things more to be difficult and to make a point than to be helpful or to improve the article. I find it hard to believe that you are really disputing whether Solomon opposes Nuclear power based on its costs or that he is critical of government responses to environmental concerns. Do you think he supports Nuclear power? Do you think he opposes it for a different reason? If so what? Do you think he supports the current approaches to environmental concerns? I'm surprised you haven't requested a cite for his being Canadian. I'm trying to write an article that's accurate and encyclopedic. What is it exactly that you are trying to do? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be challenging things more to be difficult and to make a point than to be helpful or to improve the article. I find it hard to believe that you are really disputing whether Solomon opposes Nuclear power based on its costs or that he is critical of government responses to environmental concerns. - you seem to be taking offence needlessly. It would also be helpful if you read what I wrote. I'm asking for cites to these things, not doubting them. You understantd the difference now I've pointed it out? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you're right that I'm being oversensitive. But I'm trying to clarify and improve the opening paragraphs and then to work up the article's body. So I will certainly try to cite anything you have questions about. I didn't think there was any dispute that Solomon opposes nuclear power as being excessively costly. I agree that it should be better covered and cited in the body. I think the opening paragraphs should be a more general description of this individual's notability. And if there is anything there that's inaccurate or misleading we should fix it. The article certainly needs a lot of work, expansion, and clarifications. What, for example, does it mean that Solomon supports "reforms in foreign aid"? I don't know. So let's find out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

On 4 - since it is in the context of other people (ie. Solomon is writing about these) then it has to be made clear that it is Solomon who defines "alarmism" - not the people he writes about. (the reason for the quotes is that there is no clear definition of the word. ie. what S defines as alarmism is not necessarily what others would). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes

Okay, well, I implemented what I think is the clear consensus as far as the opening sentence. I left in that his Financial Post/ National Post biography and some columnists describe him as being an environmentalist. I used the word conservative, but maybe that's not accurate or helpful? They seemed to be in more conservative publications as far as I can remember.

I also made some other changes that I think improve the article. I If anyone has dates on where and when he's worked at various publications that would be good to add to the career section. Right now it's pretty thin.

I'm not averse to retitling or reorganizing the sections, this was just a first try. A description of his books would also be good to add. I believe there are reviews for his book on sprawl, for example, and the Conserver book is pretty notable I think.

If I made any changes that are objectionable, feel free to tweak or change those back, I'm not perfect, but I would prefer it if people tried to impove on my work instead of undoing it. Hopefully we can avoid edit warring going forward and work collaboratively to resolve any disputes as they arise. I tried to add some indication of Solomon's political positions and I think this would be good to expand (with content and sources). If there are notable criticisms of his work, I think that would also be a good addition. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Environmentalist

The claim that Solomon is an environmentalist (rather than a writer with an interest in environmental issues) is clearly controversial. Per WP:BLP controversial material should only be included where supported by good quality independent sources. This had no source. Please provide a reliable independent source for the statement. Polemical sources should, of course, be avoided. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, we've done that to death above I think. Meanwhile, Solomon is described as an environmentalist in his biography and by conservative columnists.[3][5][6] is true, but begs the question: what do his opponents call him? It seems rather one-sided to give only one view. Apparently they call him an "industry shill" says the article. Should that go into the lead? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this question-begging sentence. Since we've all agreed he has written about environmental issues that'll do for me. The industry shill thing should go, the source of that is an op-ed. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Task Force on the Global Environment (2)

A web search shows that the only references to the Task Force on the Global Environment appear in Solomon's bios.[12] There are a few possibilities: (a) the organization is misidentified and in fact had a different name; (b) this was the organization's name but Solomon was its only member; or (c) this was the organization's name but it was so utterly trivial that nobody else has seen fit to mention it. (Possibility (d) has been left unstated in deference to WP:BLP.) Of these I suspect that (a) is by far the most likely. Does anyone know what this Task Force was really called? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

See above - the closest people have gotten is the "Task Force on Global Resources and the Environment" (or the Global2000) - but there is no mention of Solomon as an advisor in the report. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. Apologies; I'm not much of a regular here so hadn't noticed. Anyway I commented out the material pending identification of the correct name for the organization. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Green Beanery

This was labelled as Solomon's "business interest" which rather suggested something other than a not-for-profit environmental charity that the Beanery apparently is. Green Beanery Website: about us. I see no evidence presented that conflicts with the Beanery's own mission statement, so I've changed it. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider them to be a disinterested RS? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't, but where is the conflicting evidence? William, please have a look at this: Conservation and environmentalism: an encyclopedia, By Professor Robert Paehlke, pp. 117 here. Please read this, about Canada's Energy Probe. Note the author is a Dr. David Brooks. Who is he? Here is Dr. Brooks' CV. David Brooks is an environmentalist. This is in an encyclopaedia of environmentalism and conservation. And in this encyclopaedia of environmentalism & conservation Energy Probe is shown to be an ENGO (environmental non-governmental organisation). Green Beanery is one of its fund-raising charity vehicles also dedicated to green & fair trade. You finally have to accept that this person is an environmentalist who is skeptical of global warming. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

insert Okay, I see my wording here was definitely confusing. I didn't mean to suggest that the Brooks article mentioned the Green Beanery... Apologies to anyone who misunderstood the point I was making here. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, where did you veer off into me *must* accept him as an enviro? We were talking about sources for the beanery. Your answer "there are no conflicting sources" is obviously inadequate. Your qute Energy Probe is shown to be... looks promising but I can't see where you source it form. Can you be specific? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We only have SPS for the beanery, we both know that. According to the sources we have, the beanery is a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to Fair Trade, green coffee, and environmental policy research (i.e. Probe International). It is wrong, therefore, to have a heading stating, as you did, "business interests" as this would imply the opposite of a not-for-profit organisation. My "quote" in fact was not a quote; it was my interpretation of the article linked above entitled 'Energy Probe', by the environmentalist Dr. David Brooks, in Paehlke's Conservation and environmentalism: An encyclopaedia. In that article, you can read about how Energy Probe is funded. That information, combined with what is found at the beanery website, provides a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that the beanery is an honest charity. It took me about 25 minutes to write this. Next on my list of things to do is to find evidence for Global 2000 thing. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just interjecting, Alex, you should be aware that that "Dr." doesn't impress anyone around here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me second Dr. Boris. --Dr. Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Moi aussi. Meanwhile, if your quote isn't a quote, I can't see what text you are interpreting to say it. Could you quote here the text you are paraphrasing in that way? Though this is beginning to sound suspiciously like OR to me Dr William M. Connolley (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

William, actually I am going to instead assume that you have already in good faith followed the link above. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, followed the link, as I say I can't find it. Now please provide the text as asked William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What confuses me about your link is that it says nothing about Energy Probe being a non-profit organization, which it would have to be for your line of thought to be correct. From your link it looks like the Beanery is a money machine for Energy Probe - not a charity. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - can you please display your doctorate before contributing, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Chopped promotional hype and commercial sales link. Methinks WP:UNDUE covers this. ...and no -- never piled it higher and deeper. Vsmith (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

William, I'd like to make it clear that I regard your sarcasm about my lack of a "doctorate" as insulting and petty. I had referred to Barry Brooks' doctorate out of nothing than innocent respsect to a CV far more impressive than my own. Meanwhile, the beanery website states: "The Green Beanery, a non-profit company that aims to help small coffee farmers in the Third World, has become Canada's newest merchant in specialty green coffee beans." The text that Kim D. Petersen was able to find states that Energy Probe is a ENGO that is 50% funded by donations. It is therefore probable that if the beanery website states it is a non-profit organisation then it is. Your description of the beanery in Solomon's biography as his "business interest" or Vsmith's version "Retail business" are both pejorative & deliberately srepresenting the probable reality that Solomon is in it for the money. You may apologise for your arrogance & insulting behaviour if you like. I have escalated the latest violation of BLP policy by Vsmith that you have incited (having the text edited to imply that Solomon's not-for-profit business is in fact a profit business) to the BLP noticeboard. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

insert I should like to apologise for losing my cool here and misinterpreting William's remark as sarcasm about doctorates. He has assured me that he did not mean it that way. To Vsmith, some of your edit was probably fine with me and it was only the change of the subject heading to "retail business" that I objected to as pejorative. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP?? It is a retail business - the previous ref? link was to the website sales page. Just being retail does not say what the profits are used for, if you wish to add an independent WP:RS stating the motives of the business or where the profits go, be my guest. However, hype and sales pitches aren't reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Boris, "Coffee merchandising" is fine with me. However, the Green Beanery section is in need of a reliable source -- or just remove the section. The coffeegeek.com "press release" seems a bit lacking as an RS and is blatantly promotional. Vsmith (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The big question is, exactly what is wrong with the previous section title, viz. "Green Beanery"? It had the superb advantage that it made no insinuations, one way or the other, and simply introduced the section. I didn't put the material in the article in the first instance; it had been there since I started working on it. Should it be there? I'd say given that the Beanery is a prominent landmark in Toronto and that anyone living in that city would know about it, it seems reasonable that it should stay. If you say "business interests" or "business investments" or "coffee merchandising" or "money-machine", in the context of Solomon's biography, the casual reader thinks "Oh, I see Lawrence Solomon is a businessman & entrepreneur." Indeed, until I investigated, that's what I thought after I read the original, slanderous version of this biography. Now it may be a "retail business" in a sense, but then the World Wide Fund for Nature is also a retail business in a sense. But I regard the money I give to WWF as a charitable donation; if I found out later that WWF was in fact a retail business I would feel conned. Calling the section Solomon's "retail business" and challenging me to prove you wrong later is a violation of the BLP policy. Please note, I am not pushing any POV that beanery is a charity and probably "charity" is the wrong word, anyway. I am simply not accepting that it be labelled pejoratively as Solomon's "business interest." Alex Harvey (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Green Beanery" means nothing to the average reader. "Coffee merchandising" doesn't say anything about whether it's profit or nonprofit. The reader will see "coffee merchandising", read the text and find out what's going on. FWIW I'm affiliated with a charity that sells direct-imported coffee to support school building projects in Uganda. We see nothing shameful about telling people that we "sell coffee." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Coffee merchandising" is a neutral heading. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's all a matter of context, Boris. Having dabbled in acting & screenwriting, the subtext is often everything. But in the hope that we can focus on more important things I'll accept the compromise and mark the BLP issue resolved. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

William, I'd like to make it clear that I regard your sarcasm about my lack of a "doctorate" as insulting and petty. - I was talking to Kim, not you. That's why my comment was indented immeadiately following his. Its the standard convention. I had referred to Barry Brooks' doctorate out of nothing than innocent respsect to a CV far more impressive than my own. - that is very generous of you. Perhaps you might extend the same courtesy to people here [Removed PA - GoRight] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Perhaps you might extend the same courtesy to people here ..." - No need since we're all equals here. --Randy in Boise (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary: [Removed PA - GoRight] We're agreed that there are *no* indep sources for the GB; so I think Boris's [13] is fine. Are we all done for this section? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys (talking in general); can we avoid refactoring other's comments and edit warring over it? I know nobody here is the best of friends, but removing someone's comments without their permission generally won't help resolve the argument. If someone's said something that you feel is an attack, ask them to remove it, and/or brush it off and move on. Should they continue, reports can be made as needed to WP:WQA. On the other hand, please avoid making potentially pointed statements, and try to keep to a neutral tone. Try reading through your comments as though someone else was directing them at you; may help, may not. Thanks, guys. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia section

Has a third-party source acknowledged Solomon's criticism of Wikipedia's coverage on global warming and other topics? Otherwise it should not be mentioned in the article, per the Verifiability policy and the Reliable sources guideline.--Joshua Issac (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Joshua above. Solomon has written many columns on many things, so why this particular topic is being emphasized here? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Solomon's criticism has been picked up and quoted by another columnist, James Delingpole [14]. I'm not sure that's what we're looking for, really, but it's the only external reference in a newspaper (well, a newspaper blog) that I've seen. --TS 16:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

His criticism has also been picked up now in The American Spectator (Tom Bethell, "Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate," The American Spectator, December 30, 2009). EastTN (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Solomon's articles are reliable sources for Solomon's opinion on Wikipedia. The relevant section from Wikipedia:Reliable sources is:

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion."

The text ("Solomon has also written columns criticizing Wikipedia's coverage of global warming and other topics") seems to do a solid job of attributing the material to the Solomon and making it clear that it's Solomon's opinion. That seems to pretty solidly meet the verifiability rules (given these opinion columns, it would pretty hard for anyone to argue that Solomon hasn't ". . . written columns criticizing Wikipedia's coverage . . ."). EastTN (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the question we need to consider is whether we're singling out Solomon's coverage of Wikipedia simply because we tend to notice his opinions on a subject we're all interested in. This is the essence of self-references to avoid. It's possible for us to react to every mention of Wikipedia by giving those references more attention than they merit simply because of our personal biases. I'm undecided on this particular matter, though. A factor that might help me to make up my mind is whether he has ever criticised Wikipedia in the past, or if he's just singling us out now because of our coverage of recent events related to global warming. --TS 18:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "recent," but the first of his columns referenced in this article dates to April of 2008, which is more than a year ago. We also have a section on his work related to global warming; his criticism of Wikipedia's treatment of global warming is related to his work The Deniers, which is notable and is discussed both in this article and in its own article. Beyond that, we run the risk of making Wikipedia look foolish here. Rightly or wrongly, Solomon has repeatedly charged that Wikipedia's editorial community is suppressing dissenting views on global warming. There would be a certain implicit irony if we were to then suppress any mention of those charges from the article on Solomon himself. If we're concerned that this doesn't provide a wide enough perspective on Solomon's views, a better approach would be to bring in some other issues on which he has written multiple articles over a period of a year or more. EastTN (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

EL to "Climate doctor" article

The external link to [15] is inappropriate for a number of reasons. The article is already used as an inline reference, so it should not be repeated as an external link (reinforced by WP:ELPOINTS#3). Moreover, the article linked contains materially false accusations against another person, bringing it into conflict with WP:BLP and the Wikipedia:EL#What_to_link requirement for factuality repeated in WP:ELNO#2. Also see WP:EL#In_biographies_of_living_people, which stresses the need for compliance with WP:BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. So why didn't you just remove the duplicate link from "External links"? I've done so. The item in question is discussed in context in the article, where the reference contains a http link. --TS 20:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So why didn't you just remove the duplicate link from "External links"? - well, check the history. I did, but was reverted twice. So I decided to discuss the issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The "used as a citation" argument appears to be technically correct, but I would assert that it is rather thin given the manner in which these citations have actually been included. I would argue that the guideline in question assumes that a summary of the content of these references has actually been included in-line in some fashion which is not the case here. The citations are merely used to establish a bare factual statement. So by WP:IAR I would say that unless and until the contents of these citations are actually summarized in-line within the article (as WP:EL clearly assumes) that the use of external links be allowed in this case. --GoRight (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why we need two external links to the same opinion article in a single Wikipedia article? If you're arguing that more context is needed, then add more context. Tagging another copy of the link into the external links section adds no context and doesn't explain why it appears twice.

Obviously you do have a reason for wanting to pay extra attention to this article. If so, you should explain--in line, as you put it, why it merits that extra attention. Paying full attention to all of Wikipedia's policies, of course. --TS 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Could you explain why we need two external links to the same opinion article in a single Wikipedia article?" - What are you talking about. The is only one external link being discussed here. The other is a citation. The two are not duplicates. And as I point out the "used as a citation" argument may be technically true but the spirit of the policy on which you rely assumes that the content of the articles being linked have actually be summarized in some fashion. This is clearly not the case here and so that argument is flawed.

"Paying full attention to all of Wikipedia's policies, of course." - I have been as far as I can see. Do you feel I have ignored something? If so, what? --GoRight (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the legitimate content policy points cogently raised by Stephan Shulz and Tony Sidaway, I believe that your editing here is in violation of your topic ban. From Wikipedia:Editing restrictions,

GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from William Connolley-related pages - this is not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley.

While I wouldn't want to suggest that Lawrence Solomon in his entirety is a William Connolley-related topic, the aspects of his commentary relating to Wikipedia almost certainly fit within the topic ban's parameters. Three of the four columns footnoted in Lawrence Solomon#Wikipedia mention Connolley multiple times, and one of them (the least factual, and the one under discussion here) deals exclusively with Connolley.

I would strongly encourage you to drop this particular topic, GoRight. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What particular edits are you talking about? I didn't find anything recent from GoRight relating to Connolley. ATren (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding permalink to a [16] for quick reference. --GoRight (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "Climate doctor" is a specific reference to William M. Connolley. I agree with TenOfAllTrades' suggestion dated 03:13, 30 December 2009. --TS 21:01, 30 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) 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Environmentalist

[17] Mr. Connolley, did you notice the new sources that I added to the article? One, independent source calls Mr. Solomon a "leader in the Canadian enviromental movement" and another mentions his advocacy for environmental issues as the director of an environmental organization, and all you can say is, "We've gone over this already?" Please check again what I've added. Cla68 (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revert back to the version before yours. Yes, i did notice the references that you added to the article, and i was rather irritated that not a single one of these had an URL present. Now it took a bit, but since Google is ones friend, i seem to have found them all - and i am not impressed:

1. Solomon has been a member of American Forests, an environmental conservation organization.
   • Is not supported by the reference ([18])
2. Serving as executive director of the Urban Renaissance Institute, a division of Energy Probe, Solomon has advocated environmental protection, conservation, and safeguards throughout the world community, especially in non-affluent nations.
   • Is referenced to this[19] - which is the National Post, and it is a reply written by Solomon himself.
3. The Montana Standard described Solomon as "a leader in the Canadian environmental movement since the 1970s."
   • Is referenced to this[20] which is an Op-Ed written by Roberta Stauffer - it is certainly not a reliable source for this claim. (this is the one you chide WMC for btw)
4. Solomon's blog has been used as a source for an article in U.S. News & World Report on carbon emissions reduction legislation.
   • Is referenced to this[21], which is a blog that contains one paragraph linking to a Solomon article. It is certainly not an article.

All in all: Misrepresentation of sources - stating things not in the sources.... If i had been the suspecious kind, i would have suspected that the missing URL's were deliberate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Google is not our friend, because what it brings up is not necessarily what was originally written. I got those references from Infotrac which posts those articles in their entirety, not abbreviated versions which you found through Google. The American Forest ref states clearly in InfoTrac that Solomons was a member. The American Intelligence Wire is the original of the truncated National Post article that you found. The Montana Standard article is an independent opinion on his role in the Canadian environmentalist movement, you give no reason as to why it isn't a reliable source. Infotrac made no differentiation as to whether the US News article was a blog or not, it gave it as a reliable source, which it must be since it carries the name of the main publication. That's why it pays to pay for access to academic databases, because if you rely on Google, and most scholars would, I believe, agree, you're going to get bitten by it. Now, people are going to have choose which of us two to believe. You, with whatever Google offers, or me, with access to InfoTrac. If you would hop on down to your university library, instead of Googling from the safety and security of wherever you might be sitting at the moment, you might see what I mean. Cla68 (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

One other thing, you wholesale reverted my edits, not just the ones you specifically objected to above, but all of them, including several that you didn't mention here on the talk page. If your reversion was meant to be in good faith, why would you do that? Cla68 (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting again (BLP concerns)

#1 possibly (i will check) #2 sorry but a newswire alone is not adequate sourcing. Can you find someone who actually printed it? (also please quote the context - since it looks like an SPS blurb) [specifically i want to confirm how much of this is LS himself writing it up]. These are the simple ones. Now the really problematic ones:

#3 Is an Opinion article, which is both misattributed (still), and isn't a WP:RS for WP:BLP material. (opinion articles never are)

#4 Is still a serious misatttribution: Not only isn't it an article, but only a blog of exactly one paragraph. You are using it to peacock it into significantly more than it is.

As for wholesale reverting - yes, i do that because this is a BLP article, and ~90% of the content was poorly sourced, and i have serious misgivings about sourcing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

@Cla: User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats. Also, I think it is rather early to be flinging accusations of bad faith around. I've reverted back to the "pre-Cla" version, since there is clearly dispute about your additions. If you're prepared to talk here rather than engage in an edit war we should be able to sort this out soon enough William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to think that you've read /Archive_1#Environmentalist. Can you confirm that you had, before posting the above? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I wnat Kim to anwer my qusestion. If his edit was in good faith, why did he wholesale rever all of my sources? Please, Mr. Conelleyy, stand aside until I get an answer. Kim, can you speak for yourself? Cla68 (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a BLP article, if 90% of your contribution is misrepresentation of sources and/or poorly sourced (blogs, and other opinion sources) then it must be reverted. I notice that you haven't addressed a single one of the concerns in your reinsertion of the text. Since you are reopening a contentious subject, which has previously had long discussions, you really should be adressing this on talk first. Notice please: The only issue you've addressed adequately above is the AmFor part. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Several appropriate sources were removed. And if self-references can't be used for anything then I trust you'll get to work on the William Connolley article pronto. Won't be much left. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF - why don't you adress that at that particular article? As for this article, which is what this talk-page is about, could you please address the points i've provided above? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Exposing your arguments as being specious and hypocritical is entirely relevant to stopping the BLP violating assaults that you and Connolley and others in your cabal have carried out. If you're serious about the sourcing standards that you're arguing for, then please apply them equally to all articles in this topic instead of gunning for subjects that you disagree with. You behavior is entirely inappropriate and enormously damaging to Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)