Talk:William Connolley

Ref to New Yorker

I was helpfully fixing a dead link--and did, in fact--but Help:Cite errors/Cite error references missing key showed up at the bottom of the ref list. ??? Yopienso (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the reference from the reference section that you replaced, and it looks ok now, but who knows :) --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The updated url that you found was OK, but the coding got messed up because someone has created a stupidly complex footnoting system for this article. Then the bibliographic information got deleted. I've fixed it now. We do need the ref twice, though, because the direct quotes each need to be referenced. Merry Christmas! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the referencing system to the more typical system where the reference info can be found immediately after the text being referenced. I found the other system (which was implemented in February 2010) to be unworkable and it made it harder to verify that edits being made to the article were non-malicious. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What are the key points that make this individual notable?

I see from the article his key points are: blogger (but not a notable one with any following), software engineer since 2008 (for something called Cambridge Silicon Radio, again not notable), Wikipedia editor (how is that notable?), and "Senior Scientific Officer in the Physical Sciences Division in the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System project at the British Antarctic Survey". Well, that's a mouthful and uses a lot of words, but it doesn't mean there is anything notable that he's done. I'm really struggling to see what is notable about him, other than some attention he received by allegedly editing articles in a POV manner before he was dismissed as an admin by Wikipedia.24.76.207.207 (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read the voluminous deletion discussions. This article was nominated for deletion five times and Kept five times; the last one, in 2008, was a "speedy keep". -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is one of those irrational things. Not really irrational--inconsistent. I think we just have it because we want to, not because by our policies we should. Call it a pet page. :) I myself was glad to find it some time back; it interests me. Yopienso (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do pet pages belong on wikipedia? Isn't that what talk pages are for. Reading through the AfD logs, there does seem to be a lot of "pet page" sentiment supporting this page. I think Connolley's main claim to notability is his activity as a blogger. He did get quite a lot of attention for that. In my impression, his blog activity makes him sufficiently notable. If it doesn't, I imagine he shouldn't have a page here. --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, they probably don't. Again, the human condition includes a lot of irrationality and inconsistency. Ironically, Dr. Connolley helped get rid of the article on the more notable Dr. Ball. Who ever said it's a perfect world? Yopienso (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The guy is not notable for anything that would actually sustain a proper biography to Wikipedia 2011 standards, period. The past Afds show not much of anything at all, and they are certianly not 'voluminous'. If it was possible to have this article discussed objectively to current standards, it would be gone no doubt. The human condition/brokeness of Afd is the only reason that this article still exists, while it is still impossible to answer the basic question, 'William Connolley is a notable....???' Welcome to Wikipedia, please read our fascinating, in-depth and informative biography on his life (which in no way reads like a dissappointing patchwork of trivia, introspection and irrelevance). MickMacNee (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that such a non-notable person attracts such a lot of attention. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really. While it's interesting that you personally might think that's what WP:N is, and might heaven forbid even offer that as your case in a future Afd on this article, as far as answering the OP's query, or having any objective relevance at all, it was a thoroughly uninteresting observation. MickMacNee (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the best bio on Wikipedia, and it's not the worst. We've deleted bios of people more notable than William, and kept bios of people less notable. Consistency isn't Wikipedia's strong suit, but that's what happens when you have thousands of different people working on a project, at least half of whom are of below-average caliber. If you think the article should be deleted, then the best option is to nominate it at AfD. Complaining about it here makes it look like your interest stems from sour grapes or personal animus rather than more legitimate project-related concerns. Most of the previous AfD's failed because they were submitted in close succession; it's been more than 2 years since the last one, and notability standards have arguably tightened for biographies, so you might be surprised at the result. Or you might not, but whinging here isn't helping. MastCell ^Talk 04:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

@MastCell--It doesn't sound like whinging to me. It sounds like appropriate talk page discussion to gather input. Your bad faith regarding the caliber of your fellow editors doesn't help. Your comments about the AfD's do help--Thank you!--and show that the talk here is worthwhile. I'm curious: there are certainly "worse" (fewer details, less sourcing) bios on WP; can you point me to one on someone less notable? Yopienso (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For a small sample of less notable biographies, see Category:People in alternative medicine. As far as caliber, there's no bad faith involved, just a faith in mathematics: half of our editors are below-average. MastCell ^Talk 05:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to be a jerk, but I may as well note that this is "faith" in inaccurate mathematics. Half the editors are below the median, but not necessarily below-average. For example, considerably more than half of the US population makes below-average income because a minority of really big earners skew the mean. One might expect a similar skewness among wikipedia editors. Of course, this has nothing to do with Connolley's notability, which I guess exposes me as one of the sub-average editors... --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; "average" is an inexact term which could refer to the median, mean, or various other metrics. MastCell ^Talk 04:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph which states William Michael Connolley (born 12 April 1964) is a British software engineer, writer, and blogger on climate science. Until December 2007 he was Senior Scientific Officer in the Physical Sciences Division in the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System project at the British Antarctic Survey, where he worked as a climate modeller. After this he became a software engineer for Cambridge Silicon Radio. I personally think that him being a software engineer and a Senior Scientific Officer working as a climate modeller gives him the nobility necessary for an article. I think the article needs a lot of clean up to get rid of the trivia that is there. The comments about Wikipedia is not necessary for this article. The article needs to get into the meat of what Connolley has done in the past and is doing now. He has written articles that are published. Just my opinion but I thought I would share it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, Connolley received most of his national and international press as a Wikipedian. Therefore, I believe this is not trivia and is essential to the article. An interesting thing about this article, is that different readers who have commented above each have a different part of the article that they think is the most important part of Connolley's background. So, each of these sections is of interest to someone, and I believe that all of the information currently in the article is necessary to this biography. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the 'greater than the sum of it's parts' theory of aggregated notability. It has been advanced as a defence of this biography's existence many times, drawing together all the non-notable aspects it details to somehow make a notable person, but it quite rightly appears in no policy as a recognised formula for notability. We have a definition of general notability, which is well understood, and on that score, only 5 out of the 23 sources used to support this biography are actually non-academic independent secondary sources, with not a single one having any in-depth coverage of the subject at all. And of those, every single one is about the role of Connolley at Wikipedia. On the current sources, the only thing Connolley is remotely notable for is being scientifically published, not general or aggregated notability. And bearing in mind he is a PhD, simply being published is not remarkable in of itself. Neither is the title of SSO, it's given to many PhDs working in industry. What matters is who took notice, and per WP:ACADEMIC, the proof in this case is practically non-existent. Infact, I'd be really interested to see an organisational diagram of the BAS, to see how far down the food chain the Senior Scientific Officer in the Physical Sciences Division in the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System project actually is, and how many more eminent scientists would come above Connolley's former position, but never have and never will be considered notable. Rather than resting on personal opinons, if readers actually go looking for the required proof that he is infact a notable BAS SSO outside of scientific publications he himself is an author/co-author on, as you would expect for a biography of such people per WP:BIO, they will not find it. He's no longer even in the post, so it's not likely to arrive in future now. If he leaves his current job as a software engineer, the only way to verify it would be through primary or self-published sources. Hardly the mark of a notable software engineer. Five Afd's, even the joke one, and countless complaints/requests on this talk page, have failed to find true non-academic secondary evidence that he ever was considered a notable scientist/modeller/engineer. There's not even a single source supporting any of the text in the article about his academice/scientific/engineering work that is not connected to him in some way. MickMacNee (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Does his blog activity make him notable? Clearly his academic activity, while not negligible by any means, doesn't meet the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. In discussions of the latter point on this talk page in the the deletion logs, people who appear to be far-removed from academia have argued he meets the criteria solely because he is published (all career research scientists are) or some other misunderstanding like his co-authorship of a Science article (it's actually a "perspective" piece: not about original research and hence not peer reviewed; not that a single Science research article ensures notability), whereas people who appear to be closer to the academic research world seem to see it as an obvious case of not meeting the criteria. But Connolley has received huge attention for his activity in the blogosphere and as a wikipedia editor. Can't that be used as a basis for notability? --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have asked questions like this before. It is absolutely clear to me that he doesn't meet the notability criteria for academia or politics, and any case would have to be based on either his Wikipedia activities (which is difficult given that there are relatively few reliable sources on this) or on his blogging activities (either his historic role in the formation of realclimate, or his current role on his own blog, stoat). Note that I am not arguing that he is notable on those grounds; simply that I can't see what other grounds might be used. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

JAJ, I think "absolutely clear" is too strong for me. Prima facie a case exists that "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" and certainly a number of sceptic critics have claimed that his influence on the Climate Change content on Wikipedia has made him a central figure. Now, I don't say he meets WP:ACADEMIC, and I do not agree with these commentators about the extent of his influence but there are commentators who appear to open the question. Also his paper reviewing whether there was a prevailing academic view that we were heading to a new ice age in the seventies had some weight and had influence outside academia. Again, not slam dunk but requiring some discussion. --BozMo talk 09:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My claim was intended to be simply that he does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:POLITICIAN. Making a claim for notability in academia or politics would thus seem to be difficult, though perhaps not completely impossible. However I suspect he does have a reasonably strong claim as a blogger (and, of course, for his wikipedia activities if a suitable source can be found, something which has proved remarkably tricky). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe but I was quoting Wikipedia:ACADEMIC#Criteria point 7. I don't think any case could be made for WP:POLITICIAN. I am not sure how I would vote on an AfD these days; I might have to reread all the current policies. There seem several arguable bits though. --BozMo talk 19:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The required verifiable evidence of secondary sources discussing Connolley in depth in terms of being a notable blogger, is compeltely non-existent in the article. Infact, there's no evidence of that discussion in any depth. And the basic information on that score in the article is, as ever, completely self or primary-sourced. MickMacNee (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This discussion seems to have reached a peak and then died, unresolved, a month ago. Is this a "pet page" that doesn't belong on wikipedia page, as Yopienso suggested? Is all the attention this talk page has received evidence of Connolley's notability, as suggested by Johnuniq? There appears to be near-consensus in this talk page section that Connolley is not notable as an academic (three of us agree that it's a closed case, one suggests that some additional discussion of this point may be a good idea). On rereading this talk page section, it appears that the consensus recommendation is to either (1) try to add to the article further information on Connolley's blog and wikipedia work that substantiates his case for blogger notability or (2) initiate a new AfD in light of changes in wikipedia notability standards since the last AfD 2 years ago (mentioned by MastCell and BozMo). Without stronger evidence in the article of Connolley's notability as a blogger, there seems to be no substantial argument for keeping this page. --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that he is notable as a person who has received press attention regarding his Wikipedia editing and disputes. He may also be notable as a blogger. I would oppose an AfD. I just added one of the many newspaper opinion pieces that attacked Connolley, hopefully in a way that does not run afoul of the BLP rules - but Connolley has received a lot more press than the article indicates, as a Google search will show. (e.g. this) -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been removed before, and likely will be again. Check the archives. MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

When you consider that Tony the Marine, a Wikipedia editor and Puerto-Rican American who actually received recognition from the Puerto Rican government for his efforts as a Wikipedia editor, and even met former US President Bill Clinton in that capacity, and who is also a journalist and historian who writes for proper print publications and not just blogs or activist sites, has just had his biography deleted as being not notable in any way shape or form, then it only makes the continued existence of this article rather laughable. That was a guy who had coverage to the level of entire pieces written about him in Arizona news sites (with Arizona being, what? ten times the size of the UK?). The independent news coverage of Connolley by comparison is a couple of lines here and there. This is what supposedly passes as notability here why exactly? Nobody can justify it, and nobody ever will it seems. MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd have voted to keep Tony's article if I had known about the AfD. That sounds like a wrong result. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, MickMacNee. There is virtually no coverage of Connolley, mostly just brief mentions. The nearly 5-year-old New Yorker article spotlights him the sharpest of any I can remember, not counting the blogs that are not RSs. (I could be mistaken here, going on memory rather than double checking. Time crunch.) On the AfD on Timothy Ball, whole articles on just him were deemed "not coverage" because they did not tell when or where he was born, who his parents were, what flavor ice cream he prefers. If you are looking at "fair" or "proper," this article should not be here at all. But every entity, very much including Wikipedia, has its flaws and flukes; including this article is one of them. Why fight city hall? Anyone suggesting deletion should be sure they are not fighting anyone, but have as their sole motive the improvement of the encyclopedia. There most certainly should be no intention to slight Dr. Connolley or attempt to "even the score," a most unacceptable attitude at WP. There are strong grounds for deletion, but I will stay out of any such vote. Yopienso (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If this is accurate, it seems clear that the article needs to be removed, doesn't it? I'm relatively new to editing wikipedia, so maybe I'm just not sufficiently jaded yet. But is there really a place for articles wikipedians write about their friends? It seems like the question ought to simply be whether his blog activity (or some other criteria?) makes him sufficiently notable based on the standard wikipedia guidelines. Why should it be any more complicated than that? Personally, I'm not sufficiently familiar with his blog activity to judge how notable it is, although it seems like this could be straightforwardly looked into.--Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

[In Ssilvers comment above,] By "he is a notable person" in addition to his work as a blogger, do you mean you believe he meets the general notability guidelines? --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. As Connolley's article notes, his Wikipedia activities have been discussed in the New Yorker, Nature, major newspapers, academic papers and, according to a Google "books" search, over 20 books; and Google only searches a small percentage of published books. A general google search for "William Connolley" and Wikipedia brings up 38,000 items, most of them criticizing his editing of climate change articles. He is also cited extensively in the blogosphere for his writings on climate science. He is a favorite whipping boy at Watts Up With That? and other climate skeptic blogs who were very excited by his de-sysopping, interpreting it as his being wrong about content. So, even if you don't think his published papers, or his blogging work at RealClimate and Stoat are notable, I believe that he is notable because of getting so much press and academic attention regarding his Wikipedia editing. I don't know anything about this Tony the Marine, discussed below, but it sounds like he was notable. In any case, two wrongs don't make right. If someone satisfies the notability criteria, they are notable, even if another notable person's bio was wrongly removed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of your experience here, By December 2010, I had made over 70,000 total edits on Wikipedia. I have created several hundred articles on Wikipedia, and over 130 of them have been featured on the "Did You Know" section of the Main Page, I would expect you to know that the blogs are not WP:RS or the New Yorker article by itself sufficient for WP:NOTE. I would expect you to know that tons of Google hits do not necessarily show notability and that he does not meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. William Connolley is notable in one corner of Wikipedia. Period. Yopienso (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Handy reference for notability as an academic

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
8. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.
9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

Courtesy of Yopienso (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This section appears to violate WP:TPG. Is there some reason unrelated to soap boxing for this text to remain? If anyone agrees, please remove this section including my comment. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

How does it violate WP:TPG? We have editors asking if William Connolley has the notability for a WP biography. This lays out the criteria. I posted it because I believe it is supremely pertinent. This has been done with no challenges on other bios when there was a question of notability. In fact, I cannot fathom why you think it shouldn't be here. Please explain. Yopienso (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@ William Connolley, if you're watching: My heart wants this bio kept, but my head tells me it should be deleted. Nothing personal. I admire your knowledge, rowing, climbing, civic-mindedness, that you're a family man, and specially your new editorial attitude. Yopienso (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Your final above comment proves my point: you are soapboxing and that is not the purpose of the page. Copying extracts from pages unrelated to improving the article is contrary to WP:TPG. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway FWIW I think a case needs to be considered under 7 in this list. Specifically that it is in his former academic capacity as an academic working on Climate Change that his "impact" needs to be weighed. He has always edited as an identifiable person with an academic capacity. If he has, as some people have claimed, had a significant influence on the public debate (through his Wikipedia or other activity) then he has done so as an academic and makes notable under 7. I would want to see the evidence assembled to make a judgement on whether his influence or perceived influence is strong enough for "substantial" to be merited. --BozMo talk 07:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Such coverage if it exists at all, is all non-neutral unreliable blogfizz tbh. There are simply no reliable secondary sources that support this idea that Connolley has had any impact on the wider world simply for being an academic, let alone a 'significant impact'. This is both in terms of what they actually say, and in how much depth and detail they say it (i.e. the lack of). I mean seriously, if Connolley has had a "significant" impact, then you very rapidly start to run out of words to describe the impact of all the people who have had a greater impact - what sounds more credible in an encyclopoedic biography? "Dr. Albert Einstein had a significant impact outside academia", or "Dr. William Connolley had a significant impact outside academia"? MickMacNee (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with our principles in sourcing, this could possibly be a time and place to "ignore all rules." Point 7 would kick in if we could allow this widely published comment: "William Connolley, arguably the world’s most influentia­l global warming advocate after Al Gore, has lost his bully pulpit." It's only published in blogs and in comments on RS articles because nobody cares about it except combatants and observers in the climate wars. Yet it could be true. I can't find that the Stoat by itself is enough to give Connolley notability as a blogger rather than an academic. Yopienso (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The rules (and material) on "substantial" academic influence outside academia are not clear to me. But for example, in the non academic press, like "New Scientist" [1] there seem to be a reasonable number of references to his paper [2] pointing out that "in the 1970s everyone was expecting an ice age" was not well founded. Now this paper was not a great work of original science, and he was only one author. But it was a review exactly of the type "academic having an impact outside academia". The main summary from the paper is quoted in quite a few places without citing the paper, so there was an impact. The word "substantial" is missing from this comment. But there was an impact of sorts and substantial is a subjective word (literally it just means of substance or non-trivial) and so in my view ought to be examined. I have to say I don't think the impact was huge, and I am personally struggling with the fact that complete nobodies in some areas of public life (sport for example) get included in WP so I am inclined to set the standard for academic influence rather low, perhaps that is in line with the community view. --BozMo talk 06:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not even an article in the main magazine, it's just one of their short online blog pieces! It doesn't even name Connolley, let alone describe anything he did in person. To even describe that as being an example of his personal impact could be classed as synthesis to be honest. To start picking out which bits of it rely on the paper to quantify the impact, even though the blog doesn't even think it's worth making clear, is definitely wandering into the realms of original research. All this to support what should be a quite easily verifiable claim for a biography - 'person X had a substantial impact outside their field'. And I couldn't disagree more with the idea that 'substantial' translates as 'anything of substance' in this context. The requirement for an impact, any impact, takes care of the idea it should be something of substance. And if the issue is other fields, to take the sport analogy, in football, the basic requirement is to have made an appearance for a club in a fully professional league. That's as much to stop endless arguments over borderline GNG cases as it is to set a quite good measure of at what point a player starts to have an impact in their field. Setting aside any ideas about what is substantial, even the most minor player in the most minor club under that standard would be referred to by name in reliable secondary sources at some point in their career. That is as a minimum. And their exploits as part of the team would certainly garner ongoing in-depth coverage, in mainstream print media. Do you seriously think you've set the bar at the same sort of level with this blog piece, which doesn't even name the person? We have no article on the paper itself even though that is the primary GNG topic of this blog piece, no biography for the primary author or even the third author who wrote it with Connolley, and we don't even have a biography on the author of the blog even though her name appears to have been used in citations all over Wikipedia. Yet somehow, this single very short blog post becomes evidence to support this biography's main claim to notability? Really? In terms of basic fairness, you've got to feel bad for the 50 or so authors whose primary research the review paper rests on tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I am not going to comment on your (surprising) remarks on football but just for reference the NS coverage of that topic isn't limited to their blog [3] as far as I can tell (the main article seems to use the blog as a means to cite the source) and there are a reasonable number of similar bits around so why don't you try and list them for us, since you seem to have less apathy than I do shall we say. I don't care what the outcome of the discussion is but claiming there is no discussion looks a bit odd. On "substantial" if you want to deviate from my dictionary you will need to provide a source. If you can, that's grand of course. --BozMo talk 16:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have died out. It is odd to me, as someone relatively new to editing wikipedia, that this article seems to be so difficult to delete, and that the discussion seems to be so polarizing. It seems that most editors familiar with the practices of academic sciences agree that the subject of this bio is clearly not notable as an academic. I wonder if some of the issue stems from the Wikipedia vs Connolley conflict and sanctions history (which has been the main source of third-party information regarding Connolley). Connolley being such an expert that he has his own Wikipedia bio page may, perhaps, be valued by some as evidence supporting his side of the conflict (or the absurdity of Wikipedia's side) (?). This is, however, somewhat mistaken in my opinion. Connolley's work for a number of years in climate science research clearly makes him an "expert" qualified to author an encyclopedia article, but I think it is also that that is not sufficient to make him notable. This is not unusual. For example, one of the two authors of the Britannica article on global warming [4], Henrik Selin, does not (and should not, at this point in his career anyway) have a wikipedia page. --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Out-of-context quote?

User: Mmorabito67 keeps inserting an out-of-context quote from Connolley's (et al) BMS paper into the article in a plainly misleading way. The quote refers to a short-term (30 years) observed cooling trend, not to any predictions of future global cooling. It also is a very small part of the paper establishing the context of the 70s discussion. Using it with an "even if" to suggest a contradiction is plainly wrong. Using it at all, given that it is a small part of the introduction, and not a significant part of the conclusion, also violates WP:UNDUE. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have a problem with "even if" you should edit "even if" not remove a straight quote by the person the entry is about. In fact, Connolley and co-authors dedicated a section of that review to the fact that "By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood". The section has been titled by Connolley and co-authors "The Global Temperature Records: A Cooling Trend", so the quote cannot be ruled as "out of context" by any stretch of imagination. If anybody reads the review and not just its title, the "myth" Connolley and co-authors talk about is of a consensus in the 1970s about an imminent ice age, not the wide acceptance of a global cooling trend in the early 1970s that they themselves report as a fact of history. Check also Fig.2 in the review for the period 1971-1974. mmorabito67 (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

How we understand a "notion" being "widely accepted" (as a notion?) has to be taken in context of what the paper actually says. I accept the notion of atheism (I just think it is shocking badly thought through, and wrong). The point of the paper is that a misconception exists about scientific opinion which is worth correcting. Trying to turn this into a statement giving weight to the strength of the misconception is a little strange. Due weight also wins on the selection of that remark form the paper unless you think that the remark you decide to quote drew particular attention? --BozMo talk 17:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I can't really see what the second half of the sentence is doing in the article anyway. This article is about the man, not yet another place to refight the climate wars. Removing the second half fits the structure of the article much better. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What? Clearly this is an argument [i.e., that the scientific consensus was always in favor of global warming, not global cooling] that Connolley has made many times in his papers and blogs. The clause simply describes the focus of much of Connolley's work [and simply describes what Connolley concluded in his papers]. There is nothing controversial here, and it would be disingenuous to leave it out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are all talking about the same sentence. I'd suggest you all clearly specify which part you want in or out ("clear" as not in "the sentence" or "this argument"). I'm fine with the status quo ante, which I think Ssilvers has restored. See my argument above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Stephan - I still think it's a problem with the "even if". Connolley set out to disprove the "myth" of a "global cooling consensus". But "global cooling" can mean many things, eg (a) "the world has been cooling" ; (b) "the world will be cooling"; (c) "the world will be cooling into an imminent ice age". Connolley actually in that review with Peterson and Fleck disproved any consensus on (c) during the 1970s whilst proving there was a indeed a consensus on (a) between 1972 and 1975 circa. This is not a side issue: the fact that "by the early 1970s..the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted" is the reason why people nowadays wrongly recollect a "consensus on an imminent ice age in the 1970s" and justifies both Connolley's work and his findings. How about this edit then - actually predicted warming, not global cooling, despite a "widely-accepted", if "poorly understood", "global cooling trend" in the early 1970s - mmorabito67 (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

To answer Stephan Schulz, my preferred version is the bare bones "Connolley has authored and co-authored articles and literature reviews in the field of climatological research." found here [5]. The arguments above seem to be about the interpretation of a primary source, and in general the best solution to such arguments is to examine what reliable secondary sources say about this material. If a clear consensus exists among reliable secondary sources, first that Connolley did take a particular stand on global cooling, and secondly that this stand either forms part of his notability or is at least is more characteristic of his research than, say his opinions on Antarctic sea ice, then well and good; if not then the relevant text is best deleted until such time as reliable secondary sources can be found. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan, there are two problems with what you just wrote. First, there is no interpretation question. Look at the sources cited. They are unambiguous that this was one of Connolly's main arguments. There is no reason to add to what we now say about the topic (as Mmorabito67 advocates), which is simply that this is what Connolley's writings say. Second, the fact that he wrote several papers and lots of blogs about what he concludes is a myth doesn't have to be "more" characteristic of his research than his sea ice writings. These have been the main two focuses of his writings, and we should mention them both. So, in conclusion, we neither need to add nor to delete anything from the well-cited sentence currently in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ssilvers - as it stands, the text is misleading. Connolley's review starts with a prominent colored box stating "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age". That is the "global cooling" Connolley wrote about. But the term is ambiguous as I have shown earlier: the reader is currently misled into thinking there was never such a thing as "global cooling", something contradicted by Connolley himself in the "global cooling trend" quote I have mentioned already several times. So to be very precise the text should become - actually predicted warming, not global cooling and an imminent ice age, despite a "widely-accepted", if "poorly understood", "global cooling trend" in the early 1970s - I'm open minded about alternatives to despite - mmorabito67 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ssilvers, it's not that simple. There is evident disagreement on the interpretation of these primary sources, and by WP:AGF there is a strong presumption that the disagreement is genuine. WP:PRIMARY advises on precisely this sort of issue: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." You can state that he wrote about global cooling and sea ice under the "straightforward, descriptive statements" clause, but going beyond that requires secondary sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I further note that of the three references given under "authored and co-authored articles and literature reviews in the field of climatological research, including several concluding that a majority of scientific papers in the 1970s actually predicted warming, not global cooling.[7][8][9]", only one (reference [9]) is to an article or a literature review, the others being a blog post and a personal webpage, so the statement as it stands is not supported even by primary sources. The list of publications also strongly suggests that his interests are primarily related to the Antarctic and to sea ice, rather than to global cooling. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan, I have clarified which refs support which parts of the sentence. If you look at the list of published papers at the bottom, you will see that additional papers are about climate, not just sea ice. So I copied the first two of these (but there are more) into the ref. I think it's redundant, but if you thing we need it for clarity, OK. As to Connolley's blogs, WP:SPS says: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is not unduly self-serving [Here we are just saying that this is Connolley's conclusion about one of his research interests]; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties [Check]; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source [Check: it's not about events, just his own conclusion]; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity [Check: it was definitely written by Connolley]; and 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources [Check. The article is "based" on the 3rd party press about Connolley and his work on Wikipedia]." -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ssilvers, why did you write "His blogs and some of his papers"? As far as listed, there is only one "paper" (peer-reviewed etc) by Connolley on "global cooling". mmorabito67 (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone has already changed it to "His blogs and one of his papers". I doubt that only one of Connolley's papers treats the "global cooling myth". But if no one here knows of another peer reviewed paper that specifically treats it, ok. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

He only wrote one paper with the word "cooling" in the title. The great majority of his papers are on Antarctica and/or sea ice. More on this point later. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ssilvers, my objection was not to the use of blogs: these can indeed be used with caution under WP:SPS, and while I don't share your analysis above it's not clear to me that these references can't be used appropriately. My specific objection was to describing them as "articles" but that is now fixed. But we haven't yet addressed the underlying point: why that bit is there at all. The current text is "Connolley has authored and co-authored articles and literature reviews in the field of climatological research. His blogs and one of his papers conclude that a majority of scientific papers in the 1970s actually predicted warming, not global cooling.[7][8][9]". This gives the impression that global cooling is a major focus of his work. In fact of his 38 papers in the ISI only 1 has the word "cooling" in the title, while 20 have the word "Antarctic" or "Antarctica", and 5 refer to "sea ice"; these would seem to be much more significant focuses of his work. Alternatively we could look at citations: it turns out that his cooling paper has only 5 citations making it his 26th most cited paper, so again there is no evidence that this is important to his work. So to the problems previously noted with WP:PRIMARY we can add WP:UNDUE. In summary the sentence should go unless and until suitable secondary sources are located. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. His blogs are just as important to his notability as his published papers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that it has been established that he doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC, and that any possible claim to notability would be based on his blogs and/or his wiki activities, that position makes broad sense. I'll rephrase this bit to make clear that global cooling is not a significant part of his academic work, thus partially dealing with WP:UNDUE. Of course we haven't even begin to address WP:PRIMARY yet. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not "established" that he doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC, though some editors on this page have argued that position. I don't care whether he is or is not notable under those criteria, because I think he is a notable blogger and also notable because of the national attention given to him regarding his Wikipedia editing. However, your switching the two sentences around seems fine. I don't think there is that much more to say about Connolley, and this article gives a fair summary. We all have other articles that need writing and expanding. Why don't we just leave it alone and move on? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hard to say. For example none of my objections has been replied to. "Global cooling" still stands as ambiguous as ever, and I'm leaving it like that only because I understand some editors are pretty edgy about some climate-related changes and I do not have time for Wikipedia disputes. mmorabito67 (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I remain firmly of the view that the whole global cooling sentence breaches WP:PRIMARY and should simply be deleted. But if peace is breaking out I'm happy to leave it there for the moment. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of this article seems to violate WP:PRIMARY, mainly because there doesn't appear to be much secondary source material about Connolley beyond coverage of his disputes with wikipedia. What ever happened to the notability/deletion discussion? --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)