Talk:Willie Soon

Comment

Just for ref...

>GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L16712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023429, 2005

> >Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal >variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record >of the past 130 years > "This scientific research was supported by generous grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation...."

Grant committees at Harvard and other universities are about as likely to fund research suggesting that global warming is caused by anything other than humans as they are to vote Republican. It is not surprising that Willie Soon sought funding elsewhere.

Only a tiny fraction of climate research funding in the U.S. comes from universities. Most comes from Federal agencies. Are you saying that George Bush's government would refuse to fund a global warming skeptic? Raymond Arritt 22:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical speculation that the Bush admin would fund critics just shows a lot about the person making the comment. This whole wikipedia is just a leftist slanted op-war. The same guys who bring us Google bombing and Daily Kos, and the like.

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 22:01, 12 March 2007 (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) 01:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Polar bear section is confusing

Someone else pointed out to me the polar bear section is confusing. In particular, the article appears to suggest the paper didn't necessarily challenge the view that they were threatened but simply suggested there were other factors which were the primary reason they were threatened. If so, this doesn't seem a good reason to delist them (regardless of whether it's global warming, human-bear interactions, being scared of Sarah Palin or whatever, if they are threatened they are threatened surely?). The ref just links to the main page and while I found a direct ref somewhere else, it no longer works. The polar bear article just says "Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said that the listing was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available, a view rejected by polar bear experts" which makes more sense then this article but the ref doesn't work either. Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Added sentence to illustrate that their paper claims no warming. It is the main part of their paper. I should have put it in first time. Polargeo (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also just because there is no link to the actual article the full reference is given to the news story and I can confirm that it backs up the statement. If you can find a new link to the news story then that would be good. Alternatively if you search the Anchorage Daily News (follow the given link) for their archives and pay 2.95 Dollars you can see the article. Polargeo (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but it doesn't really help. Rereading the polar bear article, I think I understand the situation better. It seems that polar bears are protected in the US not primarily because their levels are declining but because of concerns they will be significantly affected by global warming. As I mentioned above, the article is confusing as stands, because it suggests the authors challenged whether or not there has been any warming, but did not challenge the view that polar bears are declining in numbers. Therefore, it seems logical to protect them, regardless or not whether we know the reasons for the decline. However as I mentioned as I now understand it, they are protected partially because of concerns their population will be badly affected by global warming, not simply because of their declining levels which explains why whether or not there has been any warming and whether it would affect them is of relevance to the issue of whether or not they should be protected. While obviously only of secondary relevance to the article, some explaination may be useful since I know I'm not the only one to be confused by this. Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Still active?

I haven't seen anything from soon recently and a google scholar search didn't turn up anything recent apart from [1], which is distinctly minor William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Von Storch Resignation

The article seems to be misquoting the source, when it says Von Storch resigned in protest after the paper. The source says, after the paper, Storch wanted procedural changes to the PR process that the publisher was unwilling to make, so he resigned, which is quite a different thing altogether. Does someone have a source to back up this claim before I delete it?

It seems clear the Goodall resignation was over the paper's publication, so that part doesn't seem to be under dispute. FellGleaming (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Any discussion on this before I remove Von Storch from the list?

FellGleaming (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating the call one last time: Any discussion on this before I remove Von Storch from the list?

FellGleaming (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, this discussion has been open here for 3 days and you haven't participated. The source says that Von Storch resigned, but not over publication of the paper, but rather the publisher's refusal to grant Storch additional authority after the paper was published -- a very different matter. Please discuss here; rather than reverting. FellGleaming (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read von Storchs own description of the event. Von Storch, as the new editor-in-chief, wanted to publish an editorial explaining how S&B demonstrated a failure of the peer-review process. The publisher refused and von Storch resigned. The current formulation is not optimal, but a fair summary of the event. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Von Storch's "own description" is not sourced in the article. Do you have a RS for it? The SOURCE in the article has a very different story:

“ I wanted the editorial by Hans von Storch to be published, but with a green light from the Editorial Board.

Hence I asked Hans not to rush the editorial, to consult with the Editorial Board and to publish a revised version. Hans did not like this and decided to resign only a few days after I had appointed him.

”

FellGleaming (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The man himself: [[2]]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A personal website? I'm sure you realize you can't source a scurrilous claim against a living person with that. Further, it doesn't even support what you're saying. He notes other issues for his resignation, and he doesn't even state explicitly the other resignations were due the paper. FellGleaming (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can use von Storch's blog as a source about himself. Guettarda (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's being used as a source about Soon. Further, Goodall's letter is being used to justify not only her own actions, but those of other people (other editors at the journal). It is her opinion, not fact. These are clear violations of BLP. Template:Unsigned-unk

Being used? Where? I can't find it in the article at all. Can you explain what you mean? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Were you being serious? This is a dicussion about potentially sourcing the von Storch claim within the Soon article. FellGleaming (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And? Von Storch is the most reliable source for why he resigned. Note that this is a claim about von Storch and his motivation, not a claim about Soon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Your source says he resigned to the a) a conflict with the publisher over changing the review process, and b) because he felt other CR editors used "different scales" for different papers. Your synopsis is substantially different from this. FellGleaming (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, your source links to a valid RS in the WSJ that captures the story. Why not use that for a source? What's the fascination with attributing scurrilous BLP material to non-reliable sources? Do you not want readers to trust the article? FellGleaming (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have another RS, then use it. In this case, I have to agree that SS and G, that a claim about vS and why he resigned can be acceptably sourced to his blog, provided it isn't making allegations about some other living person, which it isn't since it's just saying he didn't like the review processes Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

RealClimate Blog as a source

A non-peer reviewed opinion in Realclimate is not a reliable source for rebutting controversial scientific statements. To quote KDP: "A self-published source used to refute a peer-reviewed paper?" Does anyone have a valid, peer-reviewed paper as a source to rebut this? FellGleaming (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Of course it is a reliable source for this. The author is a published expert on this particular topic (see exception clause in WP:SPS), and not only that - he is a co-author to the 13 author paper in AGU. Also please see WP:RSN for the many times that people have claimed that RC isn't a reliable source for climate science (they were (almost) all turned down) - It is being cited for a science description and nothing more. Apparently you don't like it - but that is not an argument. [do note that the rebuttal is in the paper, RC is used for a more popular description of the paper] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS says "self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons", and that they should be "avoided" in all other cases. You are using a SPS to impugn the professional character of two scientists. This is against WP:BLP. FellGleaming (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think referring to the RealClimate website is a bad idea for several reasons. Not least of which is the fact that you could easily refer directly to the Osborn and Briffa paper rather than referring to Mann's view of that paper. Thepm (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

We could refer directly to the two papers - but then we would have to interpret the science ourselves - which in general is a bad idea if you have reliable secondary sources that do this for you. (the 3 prongs would be close to WP:OR then - even though it is the focus of the paper). RC is a reliable source for this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Where you go wrong here - is in stating that this is BLP material - it isn't. Had it been about Soon (the person) as opposed to a description of the science - then RC couldn't be used about this [not here - nor in any other article] - BLP concerns us whenever we are talking about information about living persons - be it in a biography or in any other article on Wikipedia. The reason that we can use RC (and that it is an RS on this) is that they are commenting on the paper - and that the author is a published expert on the subject (he has even published a reply to the paper). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If he's published a reply in a RS, then use the RS. Just do so in a neutral manner. This is an article about Soon, not the place for enormously long rebuttals of his papers. I'm asking you to work with me to find a source that adequately and succinctly summarizes the objections to the paper. A detailed line-by-line exposition of AGW science is not in tone for his biography. FellGleaming (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, there's a serious undue weight issue, when you don't go into any details about the paper's scientific claims...but devote an entire paragraph to claims disputing its conclusions. Not encyclopedic in tone at all.

(edit conflict)You seem to have gotten WP:NPOV wrong. When describing a monority viewpoint the majority viewpoint must be described in a way so that the reader isn't in doubt as to which is which. That is what WP:WEIGHT is about -- proportion of coverage in reliable sources must be followed. And the S&B paper is probably one of the most contentious papers in this topic area. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Quoting directly from undue weight, "...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.". The subject here is Willie Soon. You say nothing whatsoever about what his paper contains, but devote a lengthy segment to rebutting it. This is COATTRACKing. FellGleaming (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Iff you mention the paper in detail - then you have to treat it with NPOV. And that means describing it as reliable source describe it. And that means that we have to mention the rebuttals and the controversy surrounding it. And since Soon is on the minority side - you will have to mention the majority side. Otherwise it would be coatracking (using the Soon biography to present a one-sided picture) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A neutral viewpoint means you find a reliable source that rebuts it, and state the rebuttal. It does not mean you censor the paper's contents, then go into immense detail on claims against it. So far, we don't even have a rebuttal from a RS.. the BLP policy clearly excludes RC in this context. FellGleaming (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you fail to understand both WP:RS (and the WP:SPS exceptions) - as well as what WP:BLP is. Not only that - but you seem to have overlooked that RC is used here to describe the mainstream scientific case on the paper - not their personal opinions of Soon. (the former is allowed usage - the latter wouldn't be) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That speaks to the undue weight issue. You've listed Soon's paper not to provide information about Soon, but simply to use it as a platform to display the mainstream consensus again. A lengthy exposition on AGW science is out of place in this article. FellGleaming (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The single thing Soon is most well known for is the controversy about his papers. He is not well known because his papers are considered great scientific papers but because of errors in them. Therefore reflecting this in the article is in no way undue weight, it is the correct weight. A BLP is not the same thing as a CV. We should always give more weight to what an individual is notable for albeit in a balanced way. However, if mainstream scientific opinion on his papers is balanced against his work we should not go over the top to try to neutralise the language because in effect wikipedia would be showing a bias towards the individual's POV in doing so. Polargeo (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a source showing "Soon is well known for errors in his papers", then please present it in the article. FellGleaming (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the biggest news story about Soon? Why is he notable? The answer is extremely simple the controversy over the errors from his papers. Polargeo (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can establish he is notable for his impeccable climate science then please go ahead and find the sources for this. Polargeo (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. If you don't feel Soon is notable, you can nominate the article for deletion. Claiming he's known only as a bumbling incompetent, though, is something that must be extremely well sourced if you want that viewpoint in a BLP. FellGleaming (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You have completely failled to understand what I have said. Polargeo (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat myself. The thing that made him famous is a totally discredited paper. Now I know the climate change denial literature continually brings this study up as if it is still valid but it has been utterly discredited in serious scientific literature and the fact that it was published at all lead to resignations. This article, BLP or not, should accurately reflect that fact and not pander to the continual ignorance of this fact in the global warming denial literature and low level journalism. Polargeo (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) "This article, BLP or not, should accurately reflect that fact...". That sounds like a tacit admission you're using the article for a COATRACK. Nothing takes precedence over BLP violations, period. FellGleaming (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

ADN source

The Anchorage Daily News source for "Funding and review of Palin-touted study criticized" does not work, and I cannot find it on their site. Does anyone have a RS to back this one up? FellGleaming (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. I can wholeheartedly attest to it. You just have to pay for it if you want to read it. the fact that you have to pay to see the article does not make it any less reliable or valid as a wikipedia source. Polargeo (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay you have to navigate to the news archive search page [3]. Then just enter the correct date and keywords/title and you will be given a short abstrat and a link to log in and pay to view. Polargeo (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing its reliability; I just wanted to verify the story in question existed and was being accurately represented. FellGleaming (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Local library? But probably wont be necessary - since there several articles out there (on Google search for the title and author) that describes it / uses it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Awards and Honors

Whats the rationale for removing this? Such a section is standard for WP biographies. FellGleaming (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You may think it is standard practice but this is not a CV for every minor award he has recieved. Polargeo (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:NPF#People who are relatively unknown Polargeo (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Petr Beckmann award was mentioned before my edits. Do you feel the IEEE award is minor? FellGleaming (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for any award that is not minor then you are free to include it. That is different to a list of minor awards in a CV like fashion. Polargeo (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Collateral damage

I carefully picked through several edits that had removed sources etc rather than reverting and yet this has been undone by one edit from User:FellGleaming which is effectively a revert [4]. Please restore the article to the situation it was in. You have tried to change a long standing article to your own satisfaction and this has been challenged by two editors who have both previously edited the article. You should not force your edits through when discussion is still going on and there is no consensus for your sweeping changes. Polargeo (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing for the RC rebuttal. I'm willing to restore that for now, but its a clear violation of BLP to impugn the professional competence of a scientist using a self-published blog. If you and KDP want to rebut the article, please find a reliable source. FellGleaming (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - but we are not here to rebut anything. But this is the paper that Soon is known for and a mention of this is highly relevant to a biography. We can certainly discuss just what needs to be in the bio, and what shouldn't - but a any presentation of a minority or fringe viewpoint must include a description of the majority view, so that the reader isn't in doubt as to which is which. I have to agree with Polargeo on the "force" issue - the cycle is Bold-Revert-Discuss and discussion is supposed to be until resolved - not just comment-revert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There could be some improvements in the references. The best thing to do may be to directly reference the article Mann cites in the RC article. [5]. Needs some more reading though. Polargeo (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That does not mean remove the RC ref because the RC ref is really just a highly notable scientist summarising the recent research in a plain manner (not someone making it up in a self published blog!). Polargeo (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Turns out the Science (journal) paper completely backs up the RC sourced statement anyway. Can't get a much better source than that to show the consequence of the inaccuracy in Willie Soon's paper. The science paper of Osborn and Briffa references the Soon study and outlines where it was incorrect and how they have come to a different conclusion. Polargeo (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

RC is a self-published source noticeably hostile to the article's subject. It is far from a neutral, reliable source in this particular context. An accurate summary of a paper in Science (which you appear to have found) is certainly fine. Please replace the RC source with it. FellGleaming (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the RC reference as you have requested. I have replaced it by doubling up the AGU reference because all details are covered by this and the information in Osborn and Briffa 2006. The lead author on the AGU response is Mann anyway but I accept that an EOS article may be considered by some to be less inherently anti-willie soon Polargeo (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe this to be wrong - but if we have an alternative interpretation reference, then its fine - we should always (if we can) link to a reference that can give a more accessable description of science papers (if we can and it is accurate), since after all the readers aren't (mostly) scientists. The claims that RC should be invalid because it is an SPS or that it is "hostile" is bogus though - and i'd argue that we should use it as a secondary ref for the information. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that was my first thought in not removing it. However, because FellGleaming has been using the talkpage to discuss this matter and he obviously has a different opinion I thought this would best be dealt with by compromise rather than getting into an escalation over a matter of relatively low importance. Polargeo (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

American Prospect as a source

This site raises a number of flags from the WP:RS guidelines. It is subtitled "Liberal Intelligence", and openly and brazenly admits to advocacy. It's mission statement reads, in part:

“ "The American Prospect will strengthen the capacity of activists, engaged citizens, and public officials to pursue new policies and new possibilities for social justice.

The magazine's founding purpose was to demonstrate that progressive ideas could animate a majority politics; to restore to intellectual and political respectability the case for social investment; to energize civic democracy and give voice to the disenfranchised; and to counteract the growing influence of conservative media.

Across two decades, the Prospect has served as a vital link between ideas and political activism."

”

In short, it is a collection of op-ed pieces, and not a valid source for a BLP.

Why do you choose not to comment on the use of Willie Soon's own personal and unopposed testimony published on his own website and added by you [6]. Or on a personal interview with Willie Soon in his native malasia [7]. Or on the thinktank which he is a prominant member of [8]. Or on the Marshal institute publication of his own work (an institute who paid him) [9]. Or the publication of information on the controversy from his own university [10]. Or a press release from his own department [11]. Or the reference of one of his own papers [12]. Your version of balance seems to be very unbalanced. Polargeo (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Why do you choose not to comment on the use of Willie Soon's own personal and unopposed testimony published on his own website". Good question! Because BLP policy barring blogs and other self-published sources specifically excludes material published by the article's subject on their own site. See WP:BLP

The Harvard Crimson attempts I assume to maintain neutrality (though I haven't look at it yet. Don't assume because I haven't addressed a point yet that I necessarily support it.) American Prospect specifically states it is intended to push a particular point of view. It's clearly not valid in a BLP.

From your comments, can we assume you wouldn't object to removing the Harvard Crimson sourced material from the article? FellGleaming (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it is valid to use self published material for the person's own opinions and it should not be trusted any further than that. Polargeo (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Err, your first diff is not "to his own website", it's to the US Senate Environmental and Public Works website. Secondly, potentially libelous material has to meet a higher standard, as per BLP policy.

Repeating the question: do you support removal of the Harvard Crimson sourced material? You raised it as potentially non-reliable. FellGleaming (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I simply wish to state that journalism from a reliable source should not be excluded because you think it is the wrong sort of journalism. Anyway this AmProspect source is doubled up just as the RC source was so it seems a shame to keep culling reliable sources which simply back up other sources just because they come from a different political editorial POV. Also I don't care whether his testimony was in front of Kofi Annan it is still his own testimony and not the view of the senate or the UN. As to the Harvard Crimson it seems a pretty reliable and even sympathetic source in the context in which it has been used so I personally don't have an issue with it, I think I may have even added it myself. Polargeo (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you added the source yourself, why did you use it as an example of an unreliable source and fault me for not challenging it? FellGleaming (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact I think I added most of those sources to this article. I am just highlighting the fact that you are trying to remove sources from editorial quarters you disagree with even when they have no bearing on the content of the article whilst you ignore a host of self published sources and personal testimonies. This seems a little unconstructive. Polargeo (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To the larger question, yes it is the "wrong sort of journalism". It is self-admittedly not neutral and unbiased. It is opinion, and not viable for a BLP. I have no problem with American Prospect sources when they're not in a BLP making potentially libelous statements, but in this case, it's a violation. Please read the BLP policy I linked above. You cannot impugn a living person's reputation with opinion. If the statement is true, then it will be in a RS; why not help me find it? FellGleaming (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

okay I will help find more sources. However, the funding by the API is verified by the press release from his own department. The only comment from AmP is that this funding of the study has been criticised. If a AmP has criticised the funding then it has. We don't need another reliable source to tell us that AmP has criticised the funding. Polargeo (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying a living person's actions "have drawn criticism" is potentially libelous. You cannot source that to a non RS. With the attention this has drawn, though, I'm sure a RS somewhere mentions the incident. FellGleaming (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have doubled up the harvard crimson reference with this because the Harvard Crimson reference also notes the criticism of the funding. If you think doubled up AmP and Harvard Crimson together are not good enough sources for a BLP I will find some more to back up the basic statement "Soon and Baliunas have also been criticised because their research budget was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute". Do you think they have not been criticised or do you think we shouldn't mention this unless it is reported by Fox News or CNN? Polargeo (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just popped the New York Times reference in as well to back up the other three. In fact the New York Times also notes criticisism of their affiliations as well as their funding so I may add this to the article. Polargeo (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine; I removed the AP source but left the claim, since its now backed up properly. FellGleaming (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please redo your edit and not remove the sources. Polargeo (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The claim is sourced now; why do you want to add a non:RS back into the article? FellGleaming (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Add: Polargeo, My edit did not remove the NYT source; please don't accuse me of "removing reliable sources". FellGleaming (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Chris Mooney writing in TAP? How is that possibly not a reliable (and, importantly, notable) source? Guettarda (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BLP An opinion piece making potentially libelous statements against the article's subject is a violation. The notability of the person making the statement is irrelevant, unless its reported in a RS. FellGleaming (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not libelous to report that there has been published criticism. The sooner you get over this idea that everything is libelous the better. Polargeo (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that Mooney was notable, I said that his article in TAP was notable. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information - the content of our articles should be as notable as possible. As for BLP - yes, I'm quite familiar with that policy. I don't see anything that falls afoul of it here, or in the article. There's no reason to doubt their record on fact-checking - in fact, it's a very sober, even caution publication. Even their group blog, TAPPED, reads far more like a column than a blog. I didn't see anything resembling libel in Mooney's column, and TAP isn't the sort of place that's likely to publish anything that would get them sued. So we have notable comments sourced to a reliable source with editorial oversight and a history of fact-checking. So what's the problem? Guettarda (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What's not to understand? The site specifically says their agenda is to promote a particular point of view. They don't even pretend to claim neutral journalistic status. As for their "reputation for fact checking", what is your source for this? I ask in all good faith; I'm honestly interested. FellGleaming (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Having an agenda has no bearing here. You made allegations of libel. Pretty serious allegation to make against Mooney. You have a source for that, or does BLP only work one way? Guettarda (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Were you serious with this? First of all, an agenda 'does have a bearing, which is why mainstream news organizations do not allow reporters to write straight news articles in areas in which they also have strong activist connections. Breach of journalist ethics. As for the silliness about my violating BLP simply for noting his opinions are not valid BLP material, I think that's beneath response. FellGleaming (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You really should familiarise yourself with your content policies. Per WP:NPOV, having an agenda does not rule out a source. No way, no how. Not even kinda.

And no, you did not "not[e] his opinions" you said this his article "mad[e] potentially libelous statements". And that, unlike your other statements, violates BLP. Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no. I suggest you take a step back, a deep breath, and revisit your tautological logic on this one. FellGleaming (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you aren't willing to familiarise yourself with the policy, or no, you aren't willing to remove your unsourced accusations of libel against a living person? Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was going to ask the same thing. What makes TAP an unreliable source (i did check RSN - which showed nothing - and i do mean nothing - neither positive nor negative) - and what exactly makes it an opinion article? (most information in it is reliably sourceable - there is nothing really new there) And finally Mooney is (afaik) as expert an author on the politics of this particular area as can be (with several published books about it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"what exactly makes it an opinion article?" See their quote above. They're publishing opinion and advocacy material, by their own admission. FellGleaming (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientists for Global Responsibility

See this source:

• http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm

The site is clearly not a RS for a BLP. The letter, however, purports to have been originally published in a RS. If someone can find that source, please use it to support this, otherwise the claim will have to go. FellGleaming (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So now a piece by a senior scientist talking about the circumstances surrounding her own resignation from the editorial board of the journal in question and published on the website of a notable organisation and in their newsletter has less value than a journalist piece in a newspaper just because you feel that this scientist might have different views from Willie Soon? Polargeo (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The situation is really very simple. There is no problem with Goodall's resignation letter ... IF its published by a RS. A non-reliable source may have modified it, redacted portions, or otherwise changed the meaning. A self-published activist group is not a reliable source for a BLP. The policy exists for good reason, and we cannot use such sources to tarnish someone's name. FellGleaming (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You do not have a great deal of experience with wikipedia but the rule is that sources should be sufficient to back up the statement, for example if the statement was contentious it would need a cast iron source, however, this statement was not really regarded as contentious until you came along and to be honest I don't really think you believe the statement is incorrect in any way but maybe you would like to see it removed. I judge that this source is sufficient to back up the statements made in the article. Polargeo (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It's a source for her account of the facts behind her resignation, published in the newsletter of a notable organisation. It's not being used as a source for information about any living person other than Goodess. BLP isn't a property of specific articles, it's a property of the subject about which the comment is made. Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The source may be about Goodall, but it is being used to validate a statement about Soon. A claim that's potentially libelous, in fact. FellGleaming (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Goodall? I take it you mean Goodess. And no, it's not about her, it's by her. And it's being used to support statements about her actions. Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend you take a moment to re-read the article, and think about what it's saying. Guettarda (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's being used to support the claim that other editors resigned over the paper. Those are not her actions. What's hard to understand about that. As a non:RS, there's also the issue of whether its an accurate and complete representation of her letter or not. FellGleaming (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hell I've added another ref in anyway. The more the merrier :) Polargeo (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work on the source. Only problem is it says three people resigned, not four. If you'll change that and remove the non:RS from the article, I'll withdraw my objection. FellGleaming (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As a non:RS - please explain what you mean. I'm getting the impression that you understand the concept very well. Guettarda (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It means replace the sourcing for the claim from a shaky, self-published advocacy site, to a third party publication under neutral, responsible editorial control. Required policy for potentially damaging claims made in a BLP. Why are you fighting to keep the claims non-reliably sourced? Do you not want people to believe them? FellGleaming (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Except of course that it isn't "non-reliably sourced" - nor is it a "non:RS". And even under (accepting your analysis of the site) SPS it is a reliable source for the information. Goodess is certainly a very reliable source to her own reasoning.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• a) It is clearly a self-published advocacy site, with a viewpoint hostile to the article subject.
• b) The "source" is not Goodess. The source is a site which claims to have a letter from Goodess.
• c) The letter is being used not only to source the "reasoning of Goodess", but of other CR editors.

I ask one more time. If this material is reliable, why do you not want to source it from a RS? Ultimately, it makes for a much stronger case for the material you're trying to present. FellGleaming (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with our sourcing policy before continuing these discussions. Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your policy? Is it different than Wikipedias? I've already quoted the relevant sections from WP:BLP and WP:RS.

I ask a third time. If this material is reliable, why do you not want to source it from a RS? Ultimately, it makes for a much stronger case for the material you're trying to present. FellGleaming (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It is an RS - repetition of a mantra doesn't make it not be one. And please do not change again without getting consensus or other resolution. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

JSA

The polar bears stuff looks very dodgy, as is JSA's stuff. Anyway, both your links say it is unpublished William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Now this has gone too far

The addition of Soon's comment about an expert (Amstrup) adjusting his models to get the correct outcome and sourced from an unpublished draft version of a manuscript intended for the non-science journal "Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences." is just disgusting. Your quest for good BLP sourcing has lost all credibility by your additions. You are presenting Soon publications from a non-science journal which directly criticise the integrity of a scientist who has published in a peer reviewed science journal. i will remove this instantly per our BLP policies. Damn it I even have sympathy for Soon's view in this particular case but you just cannot do that. Polargeo (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC has removed it already. Do not put it back in. Polargeo (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What's your objection exactly? The paper was published (though not when the ScienceMag story was written. Nor is the person you say is being critized even named, which means there is no BLP issue even if the paper wasn't published. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 07:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The person is named in the source and is easily identifiable. I would strongly suggest the quoting unpublished drafts of a paper is very poor. Quote the actual paper if you must. It has been published and I have read it. It is a terrible public policy paper and not a science paper at all but there you have it. :) Polargeo (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The person being criticised for shoddy science is XXXXXXXX (and two other authors). Just becuase you don't actually name them doesn't make the BLP criticism any less this is BLP crazinessss. Polargeo (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can resource it from the journal itself. However, I really only feel a second reference is necessary because of the "none of them ever saw a polar statement" swipe made in the preceeding paragraph. The rebuttals before that are fine; they stick to the science, but a personal challenge of that sort really needs to be balanced with the fact that Soon has published -other- papers on the topic with other researchers. But if you feel the whole section will be overly long with this material, we can just trim out that final statement.

And yes, if you do not name the person, you're not violating BLP. WP can't be sued by claims made on external sites. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 08:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I contest that. If you make a claim that a scientist is fudging his data and source it so that it is clear who you are refering to (did not take me more than a click to see who was being refered to) that is a serious BLP issue. Polargeo (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is very different to the scientific inaccuracies Soon has been accused of in peer reviewed publications you are in fact quoting unpublished and unreviewed material from Soon that actually questions the integrity of another scientist. This is BLP craziness. Polargeo (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP says "to persons named" in an article. Further, legal precedent on libelous torts in this case is clear; responsibility ends at the server boundary. Legally, the only exception to this case is when a celebrity or public figure is described in such a way that from that text alone, their identity can be determined, even without actual use of their name. If you doubt this, I'd be happy to post a clarification request to the BLP NB if you wish.

Did you have a reply about my proposal to trim the section? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 08:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My reply is to request that you cease adding defamatory information on easily identifiable individuals who are easily identifiable per you additions. Polargeo (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer if I clarified the issue on the BLP NB? I'll be happy to do that if you wish. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 08:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The identity of Amstrup can easily be established per your source of the unublished draft of the paper. The stuff on the polar bear issue previously in the article is about a notable dispute. Notable because Gov. Palin cited the paper and because there was a dispute between academics in a scientific journal on this matter. The stuff you have cited is not notable as it is low level stuff not even published in a scientific journal. Polargeo (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Interfaces is a peer-reviewed journal, and the second paper is very notable as well, with many mentions in the media, and with Armstrong himself presenting the paper to testimony before the US Senate. Since you feel the material before this is all strictly necessary, I will reinsert the paper, sourced directly from the journal. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 13:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

We should not make this article into a forum for Willie Soon's science, just because he has a wikipedia article does not make it a free reign to go citing all of his scientific opinions. This is not a forum for the individual. Polargeo (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Soon's article is not a place for citing his scientific opinions? Have you looked at any other articles on academics? 15:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists does not concern me. You are now delving into stuff which has been published in non-scientific journals and which he is third author on which is critical of scientists in peer reviewed scientific journals this is going way too far towards WP:COATRACKing Polargeo (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, this is not just a random opinion, it is a peer reviewed paper, published in an academic journal specifically being used to refute a damaging accusation against him. Either the accusation needs to go, or papers he published rebutting it need to be mentioned. 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You really need to stop demanding. I will give you a response. I disagree with your analysis of the issues. We should now wait until other editors have had their say on these matters rather than giving out ultimatums. Polargeo (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My recent undoing of FellGleaming's edit

Fellgleaming in this edit is repeating accusations made by WSoon and his coauthors (from a "draft" of a paper that has not been published in a scientific journal) which accuses a scientist of massaging his data in a peer reviewed scientific paper. I would not usually undo edits in the middle of a content dispute but I feel that this is so far against our policies that I had to undo it and I request other editors to come in with further opinions. Polargeo (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This objection is a little silly and based on faulty understand of BLP policy. The paper isn't alleging intentional malfeasance and, even if it were, its fine in a BLP as long as it is verifiable. You're not complaining about the critical statements about Soon, why are you caviling at statements made by Soon? The touchstone here is verifiability, and verifiability is met. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 16:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it rather incredulous that you should be the only one to understand both WP:RS and WP:BLP. BLP is in effect on all articles, in fact everywhere a living person is mentioned, it doesn't matter where. We need serious reliable sources for BLP stuff - and a "draft" paper is certainly not such for BLP information on 3rd party. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to look again. The latest source reference is not a draft paper, and no living person is directly mentioned. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 17:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at this Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts and i really don`t see a blp issue, it is also not a draft. Could someone tell me what this BLP issue is? mark nutley (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The BLP issue was the criticism of the integrity of the scientists which FellGleaming added to the article and that criticism of the integrity was directly taken from the unpublished draft paper. Polargeo (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The two quotes that FellGleaming put into the article with this edit both came from the unpublished draft paper. Neither are from the actual paper even though FellGleaming changed the reference to cite the actual Interfaces paper he obviously didn't check out the fact that those quotes had understandably been removed from the article. The quotes are also not found in the other reference which Mark has studied. So FellGleeming was repeating clear libellous quotes questioning the integrity of several scientists. It is clear that neither the journal or the news story repeated these quotes as I am sure they both realised the potential legal case that would come their way had they done so. Polargeo (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

On another matter I do have an editorial issue with the addition of arguments and claims made in an obscure public policy journal which critcise peer-reviewed science by applying the public policy assessment criteria designed by the lead author of the article. Polargeo (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This objection won't wash. Ecological Complexity is an even more obscure journal than Interfaces, yet you're defending its inclusion not only in the article, but within the very lede Fell Gleaming^(talk) 12:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the fact that a rather poor social science article on public policy is being used by you as a source to criticise the science in a peer-reviewed science article. That is not balance it is trash. Polargeo (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)