Talk:Indur M. Goklany: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:42, 17 June 2010

Source Analysis

Marknutley asked me to carry out a source analysis, as under the terms of his sanction, he is prevented from introducing any sources to any article in the CC area, broadly construed, without first checking with an experienced editor for review. Here is my review of the sources in the article as of this diff [1] (which precedes all of NW's changes today):

"Staff Directory". Department of the Interior. http://www.doi.gov/ppa/directory.html. Retrieved 23 May 2010.

Passes muster

"Indur M. Goklany". World Economic Journal. http://www.world-economics-journal.com/Contents/AuthorDetails.aspx?AID=418. Retrieved 23 May 2010.

Passes muster

Goklany, Indur M. (April 23, 2007). "Unintended consequences" (in English). New York Times (New York Times). http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/opinion/23iht-edgolany.1.5404935.html. Retrieved 23 May 2010.

Passes muster as a source of what Indur said or believes. Not usable for anything else as an Op Ed piece. Demonstrates notability of the subject

Brickley, Adam (August 17, 2009). "New Movie Seeks to Refute Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’" (in English). CNS News. p. 1. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52543. Retrieved 23 May 2010.

Not a very good source as this source is biased, or will be viewed as same, except possibly for very factual stuff. Any opinions or critical views likely to be denigrated

Goklany, Indur (07-15-2009). "Apocalypse When?" (in English). Korea Times (Korea Times). http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2010/03/198_48492.html. Retrieved 23 May 2010.

Passes muster as a source of what Indur said or believes. Not usable for anything else as an Op Ed piece. Demonstrates notability of the subject

Goklany, Indur (in English). The Improving State of the World: Why We're Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet. The Cato Institute. p. 450. ISBN 978-1930865983.

Passes muster as a source of what Indur said or believes. Not usable for anything else as it is by him and he is not demonstrated to be a reliable source. Demonstrates notability of the subject. Cato Institute is viewed as partisan by many

Goklany, Indur (Nov 2002) (in English). The precautionary principle: a critical appraisal of environmental risk. The Cato Institute. ISBN 978-1930865167.

Ditto

Goklany, Indur Goklany (November 26, 1999) (in English). Clearing the Air: The Real Story of the War on Air Pollution. The Cato Institute. pp. 250. ISBN 978-1882577835.

Ditto

Goklany, Indur M. (19 September 2009). "Climate change is not the biggest global health threat" (in English). The Lancet (The Lancet) 374 (9694): 1. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61655-X. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)61655-X/fulltext. "In summary, the Commission has misdiagnosed the world's primary health problem, and its costliest remedy—mitigation—is also probably the least effective".

Passes muster as a source of what Indur said or believes.. May be useful as a source elsewhere since it's in The Lancet... he may have some expert credentials. But it is an op ed piece (letter to the editor) so is not a reliable source except on his view on things.

Goklany, Indur M.. "The Globalization of Human Well-Being" (in English). Cato Institute. p. 1. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-447es.html. Retrieved 23 May 2010.

As with other Cato Institute sources.

Goklany,, Indur M. (Winter 2009). "Deaths and Death Rates from Extreme Weather Events: 1900-2008" (in English). Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons) Volume 14 (Number 4): 8. http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf.

Passes muster as a source of what Indur said or believes. May be useful as a source elsewhere since it's in the american equiv of The Lancet... he may have some expert credentials

Re: American equivalent of The Lancet, please see [2]. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goklany, Indur M. (February 5, 2008). "What to Do about Climate Change" (in English). The Cato Institute. p. 1. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-609.pdf. Retrieved 23 May 2010.

Passes muster as a source of what Indur said or believes

Goklany, Indur M. Goklany. (in English)Nature (Nature) 20 (1075). doi:10.1038/nbt1102-1075. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v20/n11/full/nbt1102-1075.html.

An op ed piece. Passes muster as a source of what Indur said or believes.

In short all of these sources are usable in the corret context. The article establishes notability of this person and somewhat on his credentials, but has not established him as a citeable expert yet. The article needs some polishing... get another editor to help if you can. I approve use of all the references given for the purposes I listed. I think the article seems to abide by those limits fairly well. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

I took some stuff out [3].

he wasn't a lead author for IPCC '90. That appears to be a mangled version of He was the principal author of the Resource Use and Management Subgroup report in the IPCC’s First Assessment. [4] Quite what that is I don't know, but its different.
the other stuff was a copyvio from the same source.

Also, I'm not convinced that http://www.world-economics-journal.com/Contents/AuthorDetails.aspx?AID=418 is a RS for a biog; it looks very much like author-supplied material William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for being a "representative", that isn't IPCC. G says "delegate" which makes more sense [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see SV has reverted this, as usual without any attempt at talk page discussion. Sigh William M. Connolley (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because it is not a copyvio. The text is totaly different. The source is fine as Lar and NW have both ok`d it. SBHB also looked over this article and made no mention of this source being unreliable. Instead of taking stuff out why not just rewrite it to say he was a principal author for the FAR? mark nutley (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't looked over the sources at all. I just cleaned it up as best I could and deferred to Lar's judgment. NW (Talk) 20:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that I've done a bit of a copy edit [6] as requested, and I'll take a look around later to see if there are sources to expand it with. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting better. But still wrong He wasn't Lead Author but Principal Author, or probably better calls him "rapporteur" of the group [7]. And it is a report to WGiii William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who`s address is in that pdf you have linked to here? I believe posting the address`s of people was a blp violation? mark nutley (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the link to the pdf, it is a residential address and may be Goklany`s home address please do not use that document again mark nutley (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-inserted the PDF. It is a document *on his own website*. Please pause to think before reverting. Now: how about discussing the substance: do you think it is correct to call him a "lead author"? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it again, please look over Misuse of primary sources It clearly states Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. This WMC is your second serious blp breach this week, you also posted a link to a document with fred singers address on your talk page, please be more careful. With regards to your question i think it is correct to use what the source says mark nutley (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marknutley, five seconds with Google shows that 1849 C Street NW is an office building, including offices for -- you guessed it -- the U.S. Dept of Interior Office of Policy Analysis. In fact you didn't even have to use Google, as it's right there in the Reference 1 of the article. Spurious accusations of BLP do nothing to help the environment around here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on goggle it is a residential area not an office block, and that is beside the point read wp:dob it says no contact information for living persons the address were he works is contact information mark nutley (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, you are way out over your skis. You'd probably be best stopping, now. The address in that document is not private info, for many reasons. First, because the subject publishes it. Second, because it's a governmental office. Stop, please. Hipocrite (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have see your talk mark nutley (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So: MN: are you finally prepared to admit your error? In which case you need to apologise to those you've reverted, and restore the text you've deleted inappropriately from this page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC: Please don't berate others about things you do not willingly do yourself. It's not helpful. MN: I agree with others that the PDF link can stay even if it gives an address since it is 1) self sourced and 2) a non residential address... last I checked, unlike the CIA or NSA addresses, who works where in the Interior Department isn't secret. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the PDF link; there is clear consensus that the removal was invalid; MN gracelessly refuses to do the right thing despite admitting error [8] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Representative ...

This seems to be peacocking - He was one of 17 special advisors to E.U. Curtis Bohlen (the US representative) and Robert A. Reinstein (the alternative representative) at the UN FCCC[9] - not the or a representative. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, i see that WMC pointed this out above as well. Delegate is the more correct (and shortest description). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! The IPCC has put up the old reports as PDF's :) - So we can verify the rapporteur state online, here are the mentions:

FAR WGI - Reviewer[10] p. 358
FAR WGII - (paper cited in FAR WGII report as "personal communication Feb 8 1990) apparently not a participant here
FAR WGIII Rapporteur[11] p.204 under Governmental members and participants.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally he was One of 10 advisors to delegate F.M. Bernthal (and his 4 alternate delegates) at the first/creating session of the IPCC.[12] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "Resource Use and Management Subgroup report"?

(see also the above section) It doesn't seem to be an official document - why is this (unverifiable) claim used? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source that we are getting that information from is a "brag-sheet", which is (likely) written by Goklany himself, and thus is likely not reliable (per WP:V) for such information. I'd like independent validation of this, since i've been through quite a lot of the IPCC material for the first assessment report (and all of those that names Goklany), perhaps i've overlooked it - but i still want independent confirmation. [this unsigned text was written by me --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]

I don't know whether that material was written by Goklany himself. Supposing it is, which part of V would indicate that that makes it unreliable? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SELFPUB #1 and #4. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the above section which makes a strong case for this being a "brag-sheet". (ie. written as if he was the representative which he wasn't (he was a delegate) etc.). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The material is not unduly self-serving" and "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". You and WMC are the only people who are saying either of these apply, and as you both regularly attack BLPs of people you disagree with (even with the RfAr underway!), your views can't be relied upon. Please don't revert again. In fact, please reconsider editing any BLPs of people involved in climate change. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I've now gone through most of it again - and i still can't find any independent confirmation. I'm going to revert back to the last version - please: I'm not saying that it is incorrect (a lot of the paperwork hasn't been scanned yet) - but there is no verfication available + every indication that this is puffery (ie. that the subgroup simply was a workgroup (one of four to the WGIII)). The rapporteur for the published WGIII report is entirely correct though. (again see above). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
 :::SELFPUB #1 and #4. --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 05:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 :::See the above section which makes a strong case for this being a "brag-sheet". (ie. written as if he was the representative which he wasn't (he was a delegate) etc.). --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 05:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
+::::"The material is not unduly self-serving" and "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". You and WMC are the only people who are saying either of these apply, and as you both regularly attack BLPs of people you disagree with (even with the RfAr underway!), your views can't be relied upon. Please don't revert again. In fact, please reconsider editing any BLPs of people involved in climate change. <font color="blue">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 05:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 ::{{ec}}I've now gone through most of it again - and i still can't find any independent confirmation. I'm going to revert back to the last version - please: I'm not saying that it is incorrect (a lot of the paperwork hasn't been scanned yet) - but there is no verfication available + every indication that this is puffery (ie. that the subgroup simply was a workgroup (one of four to the WGIII)). The rapporteur for the published WGIII report is entirely correct though. (again see above). --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 05:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)