Talk:Lawrence Solomon

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 [1]? I can't see it. Or [2]?
• 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.[3] 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 [4] 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 [5]. 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 [6] 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 [7] 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 (2)

[8] 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 ([9])
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[10] - which is the National Post, and it is a reply written by Solomon himself. [updated Jan 28: this is the full article [11], the quoted text is from the blurb --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)]
3. The Montana Standard described Solomon as "a leader in the Canadian environmental movement since the 1970s."
   • Is referenced to this[12] 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[13], 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)

Update on #2: This is the entire article[14], which i quite correctly located to the Financial Post, and which is reprinted on Solomons own site. And i correctly surmised that the quoted text was from Solomons usual blurb in the Financial Post, which has been discussed intesively previously and is no better than a WP:SPS. Newswire merely redistributed the commentary. So it is not a WP:RS for this information. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:25, 28 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)

Personal attacks removed. Vsmith (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have protected the article for one week due to edit warring. Please work it out here. I have also started a thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lawrence Solomon to request an outside review of the BLP concerns, as I am not sure that they are sufficient to warrant the risk of potential chilling effects from applying the policy too broadly. If any uninvolved party feels that these concerns should be reversed in this case, please selectively revert through the protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Should be covered by Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am directed here from BLP/N and I'll have to say this particular appeal to the BLP policy is possibly the first time Wikipedia has made me laugh since, well, I can't remember. ;-) Anyhow, I agree with 2/0 that there's no BLP issue here, and I support Cla68 & ChildOfMidnight that the new material belongs in the article, and thank Cla68 for finding much of it. It might also add that it's probably a good time to update the lead to explicitly note that Lawrence Solomon is an environmentalist. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree no substantial BLP grounds but have no opinion on the inclusion. --BozMo talk 10:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Could we get back to the sourcing problems, which it seems that no one is willing to answer? BLP btw. is not only for negative information, but applies just as equally to positive, which also seems to be overlooked here. Negative material should be removed on sight, while positive can be discussed, which is the reason that i haven't commented on BLP/N. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon is one of Canada's leading environmentalists his own website one of Canada's leading environmentalists Financial post THE DENIERS—by a world famous environmentalist Richard Vigilante Books renowned Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon American Spectator. How many do you want btw? --mark nutley (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A reliable one would be nice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is the american speccie not a RS? mark nutley (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The American Spectator piece is probably deemed opinion, but what about Cla68's Infotrac piece? KDP hasn't answered that yet. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Which one of the Infotrac's #1 or #2. #1 doesn't say he is an environmentalist, #2 is simply the normal blurb from Solomons' Financial Post column. (Cla68 didn't follow through on his search, i've updated with a link to Solomons own site with the column). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about #1, "Solomon has been a member of American Forests, an environmental conservation organization." You have removed that from the article and told the community that we have to wait for you to go to your library to check it. Have you been the to the library? How long do we all have to wait here? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Say what? Where did "the community" tell you that? It is quite possible that he has been a member of that organization, but that doesn't make him an "environmentalist" [15], he may just like to read their journal to keep himself up-to-date. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, you have reverted wholesale Cla68's edits, citing the BLP policy, and reverted the above sentence. Cla68 has responded to you above, and shown that you had no good reason to revert his edit. You then admitted, "maybe", and said you would check. Have you checked? Or will you agree that his text should be restored to the article? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, i said "maybe" to one reference, Cla68 could of course speed verify it for us, by taking a screen-shot. The rest of the references are still as bad as before. From what i've seen in the rest of the references, my revert was absolutely correct. If 80% of an edit is bad, then i revert "wholesale". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 does not need to send us a screenshot (although it'd be a good idea if it's possible). If you have concerns about what is actually inside a reference, then you assume it says exactly what Cla68 says it says, or you go off to the library and check it. Either way, it should stay in the article until such time that you come back with some valid reason for why it shouldn't be included. "I don't have access to it" is not a valid reason. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah but that is the problem isn't it. I do have access to it, i've linked it, it doesn't contain what Cla68 says it does - so i assume that it may be in the introduction or blurb of the article. The trouble is that the rest of the references do not contain what Cla68 said they did, so reasonable doubt is a factor here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, do you have access to the full article or don't you? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Random comment: it should be clear that any comment, in any article, which went like "the man was a leader of the environmental movement in the 1970s" would be opinion, regardless of whether the article is titled as an "op-ed" or not. That doesn't mean such information could never be included. The opinion was published and should probably be included, although it could possibly be balanced by other sources which say differently, such as allegations that Solomon was astroturfing, if sources are available. II | (t - c) 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• I don't have access to InfoTrac as I'm currently traveling, but in the meantime I've qualified a few of the statements in a manner which I believe is reasonable. When I return home I will check ProQuest's NewsStand for more information on Solomon, as NewsStand was unavailable (at least, to me) the day I found the information in Infotrac. I still don't understand why Mr. Kim reverted my original addition in its entirety, when he admits that he did not dispute the entirety of what was added. I don't find that behavior to be very helpful or in the spirit of collaboration. More to follow. Cla68 (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• One point of contention here has been whether to label Mr. Solomon as an environmentalist or not. Before getting more involved in this discussion, I decided to ask Mr. Solomon himself about it. I emailed Mr. Solomon today and asked him if he felt that "environmentalist" was an accurate label for him. He replied that he did, in fact, feel that it is an accurate description of him based on his work and advocacy for environmental causes since the 1970s. So, as we proceed on coming to a conclusion on this point we can do so knowing that the article's subject believes himself to be an environmentalist. Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure how much weight a subject's self-evaluation should be given. We wouldn't be surprised to find Sarah Palin considers herself well informed and Vladimir Putin considers himself an exponent of democracy. (But Muhammad Ali really is The Greatest.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Boris, the difference here is that Mr. Solomon is an environmentalist, and the same has been established by a number of routes, e.g. by meeting the reliable sourcing criteria, by showing a large number of opinions of other environmentalists who disagree with Solomon still calling him an environmentalist, by establishment of a majority of Wikipedia editors agreeing that Solomon is an environmentalist, by appeals to RS/N, by appeal to Solomon's publicists, and finally by just asking Solomon. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I found one more source of information in NewsStand on Solomon and added it. Again, the source shows that Solomon is actively involved in environmental activism. If no further objections, I'll readd to the article that Solomon is an environmentalist. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, Mr. Solomon has now written an article on our editorial debates about this particular question: Lawrence Solomon (2010-02-13). "Lawrence Solomon: Who am I?". National Post. Retrieved 2010-02-13.

I don't know how this fits in as a potential source, but it's an unusual twist for the subject of an article to be writing about talk page debates over how Wikipedia will be describing the subject in that article. EastTN (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a valid source for disputable claims about himself. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Further, the FP Comment pages at the National Post are blogs, not newspaper columns, editorials, or reports. Mindmatrix 18:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Blogs on newspapers are reliable sources, As it is in a newspaper which is a wp:rs then it is not self published either mark nutley (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And i just looked at WP:SELFPUB Which clearly states that this can be used mark nutley (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this can be used as a reliable source for Mr. Solomon's statements/views about himself and Wikipedia. Honestly, though, I mentioned it more because of the novelty of having the subject of an article break the fourth wall and start using a news outlet to write about the editors who are writing about him.EastTN (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I reverted the anon. Obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And your reasons? It was reliably sourced and true was`nt it? mark nutley (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Err no, it was nonsense. Obviously. If you want to write "LS says that..." then that is fine. But so state that it is true, then obviously a blog posting by him is not sufficient William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Err yes, blogs in newspapers are reliable sources. And wp:selfpub also says it`s allowed, perhaps you should look at the conversation above? mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are reliable to the opinion of the author - nothing more. And thus must be attributed as (for instance) "According to X: Y is Z". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP rules apply here. Mr. Solomon names and criticizes a Wikipedia editor by his real name, so I believe that independent reporting by a separate, reliable source would be necessary before adding more detail on Mr. Solomon's allegations. On that note, the editor who Mr. Solomon names probably should be careful to make only noncontroversial edits to this article. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the telegraph has it covered as well Mentions two different editors to kim though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 2010-02-17T08:36:45 (UTC)

Appears that Fleet Street has taken notice, but that's a newspaper blog entry from this past December. BLP rules still apply. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If I could just point out here, it doesn't make a lot of sense to link every single article and blog post that Mr. Solomon has written against Wikipedia in its very own section. It looks silly. And it looks even sillier to list every single article but say nothing at all about what he actually said in them. I don't think the criticisms of William M. Connolley should be mentioned in this article, according to our BLP policy, but it is probably appropriate to discuss some of the non-editor specific criticisms he's made. Finally, I would probably wind it back to the most famous articles. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(By the way, I agree with WMC's revert here, even if I strongly disagree with WMC himself making the revert.) Alex Harvey (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Coffee merchandising

Based on Solomon's recent post about his own article, it is clear that he was as flabbergasted as I was that the article presently tries to make Solomon sound like a coffee businessman. Can we just delete this embarrassing, completely irrelevant section from the article now? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The only sources for it apparently are the press release and Solomon's column. I would say either expand it by a couple of sentences and add more clarifying detail from Solomon's commentary, or else delete it. As is it doesn't appear to explain well what's really going on with that enterprise. Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we delete anything sourced only to Solomon? That would appear rather radical. I, personally, don't think he is reliable but I would have thought you would differ William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)