Jump to content

Talk:Indur M. Goklany

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source Analysis

[edit]

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

Passes muster

Staff directory link is NOT WORKING. Is this a temporary glitch to too much traffic as he has been in the news a bit or has the link changed??? Also, does anyone know if his position is appointed by the President and if so, which President? How long has he held this position? Thanks, Mylittlezach (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Passes muster
Passes muster as a source of what Indur said or believes. Not usable for anything else as an Op Ed piece. Demonstrates notability of the subject
Not a very good source as this source is biased, or will be viewed as same, except possibly for very factual stuff. Any opinions or critical views likely to be denigrated
Passes muster as a source of what Indur said or believes. Not usable for anything else as an Op Ed piece. Demonstrates notability of the subject
  • Goklany, Indur (in English). The Improving State of the World: Why We're Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet. The Cato Institute. p. 450. ISBN 978-1930865983.
Passes muster as a source of what Indur said or believes. Not usable for anything else as it is by him and he is not demonstrated to be a reliable source. Demonstrates notability of the subject. Cato Institute is viewed as partisan by many
  • Goklany, Indur (Nov 2002) (in English). The precautionary principle: a critical appraisal of environmental risk. The Cato Institute. ISBN 978-1930865167.
Ditto
  • Goklany, Indur Goklany (November 26, 1999) (in English). Clearing the Air: The Real Story of the War on Air Pollution. The Cato Institute. pp. 250. ISBN 978-1882577835.
Ditto
  • Goklany, Indur M. (19 September 2009). "Climate change is not the biggest global health threat" (in English). The Lancet (The Lancet) 374 (9694): 1. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61655-X. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)61655-X/fulltext. "In summary, the Commission has misdiagnosed the world's primary health problem, and its costliest remedy—mitigation—is also probably the least effective".
Passes muster as a source of what Indur said or believes.. May be useful as a source elsewhere since it's in The Lancet... he may have some expert credentials. But it is an op ed piece (letter to the editor) so is not a reliable source except on his view on things.
As with other Cato Institute sources.
  • Goklany,, Indur M. (Winter 2009). "Deaths and Death Rates from Extreme Weather Events: 1900-2008" (in English). Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons) Volume 14 (Number 4): 8. http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf.
Passes muster as a source of what Indur said or believes. May be useful as a source elsewhere since it's in the american equiv of The Lancet... he may have some expert credentials
Passes muster as a source of what Indur said or believes
An op ed piece. Passes muster as a source of what Indur said or believes.

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

Problems

[edit]

I took some stuff out [3].

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

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

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

Hmm, I see SV has reverted this, as usual without any attempt at talk page discussion. Sigh William M. Connolley (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because it is not a copyvio. The text is totaly different. The source is fine as Lar and NW have both ok`d it. SBHB also looked over this article and made no mention of this source being unreliable. Instead of taking stuff out why not just rewrite it to say he was a principal author for the FAR? mark nutley (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I haven't looked over the sources at all. I just cleaned it up as best I could and deferred to Lar's judgment. NW (Talk) 20:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here that I've done a bit of a copy edit [6] as requested, and I'll take a look around later to see if there are sources to expand it with. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting better. But still wrong He wasn't Lead Author but Principal Author, or probably better calls him "rapporteur" of the group [7]. And it is a report to WGiii William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who`s address is in that pdf you have linked to here? I believe posting the address`s of people was a blp violation? mark nutley (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the link to the pdf, it is a residential address and may be Goklany`s home address please do not use that document again mark nutley (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-inserted the PDF. It is a document *on his own website*. Please pause to think before reverting. Now: how about discussing the substance: do you think it is correct to call him a "lead author"? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it again, please look over Misuse of primary sources It clearly states Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. This WMC is your second serious blp breach this week, you also posted a link to a document with fred singers address on your talk page, please be more careful. With regards to your question i think it is correct to use what the source says mark nutley (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marknutley, five seconds with Google shows that 1849 C Street NW is an office building, including offices for -- you guessed it -- the U.S. Dept of Interior Office of Policy Analysis. In fact you didn't even have to use Google, as it's right there in the Reference 1 of the article. Spurious accusations of BLP do nothing to help the environment around here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mark, you are way out over your skis. You'd probably be best stopping, now. The address in that document is not private info, for many reasons. First, because the subject publishes it. Second, because it's a governmental office. Stop, please. Hipocrite (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have see your talk mark nutley (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Representative ...

[edit]

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

Ah, i see that WMC pointed this out above as well. Delegate is the more correct (and shortest description). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! The IPCC has put up the old reports as PDF's :) - So we can verify the rapporteur state online, here are the mentions:
  • FAR WGI - Reviewer[10] p. 358
  • FAR WGII - (paper cited in FAR WGII report as "personal communication Feb 8 1990) apparently not a participant here
  • FAR WGIII Rapporteur[11] p.204 under Governmental members and participants.
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally he was One of 10 advisors to delegate F.M. Bernthal (and his 4 alternate delegates) at the first/creating session of the IPCC.[12] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

The source that we are getting that information from is a "brag-sheet", which is (likely) written by Goklany himself, and thus is likely not reliable (per WP:V) for such information. I'd like independent validation of this, since i've been through quite a lot of the IPCC material for the first assessment report (and all of those that names Goklany), perhaps i've overlooked it - but i still want independent confirmation. [this unsigned text was written by me --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]
I don't know whether that material was written by Goklany himself. Supposing it is, which part of V would indicate that that makes it unreliable? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SELFPUB #1 and #4. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the above section which makes a strong case for this being a "brag-sheet". (ie. written as if he was the representative which he wasn't (he was a delegate) etc.). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The material is not unduly self-serving" and "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". You and WMC are the only people who are saying either of these apply, and as you both regularly attack BLPs of people you disagree with (even with the RfAr underway!), your views can't be relied upon. Please don't revert again. In fact, please reconsider editing any BLPs of people involved in climate change. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is self-serving - it is claiming things that are verfiably incorrect. Do please note that the "brag-sheet" claims that Goklany was a US representative - when that isn't correct. (verifiably) He was a special-advisor to the representative. The personal attack here is not amusing, and if policy hasn't been changed within a short while, that is against policy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I've now gone through most of it again - and i still can't find any independent confirmation. I'm going to revert back to the last version - please: I'm not saying that it is incorrect (a lot of the paperwork hasn't been scanned yet) - but there is no verfication available + every indication that this is puffery (ie. that the subgroup simply was a workgroup (one of four to the WGIII)). The rapporteur for the published WGIII report is entirely correct though. (again see above). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say what?

[edit]

(copied from SV talk; please continue the discussion here instead)

This edit-comment is rather incomprehensive - or at the very least demands an explanation. Why should i leave the article alone? I've done a heck of a lot of leg-work in verifying its content, and been very thorough in describing it on talk. Your reversion on the other hand is completely unexplained (except for the personal comment about me). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason you should leave all BLPs alone. You misapply the policies to suit your personal opinions, and you target the BLPs of people you disagree with. Many people have said this to you, WMC, and the other two. It really is time to take that advice. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but where exactly have i ever been sanctioned or otherwise shown to do such? You seem to leap ahead of any decision. "Many people have said this" is not a reason for personal attacks or claims. I'm not amused. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this personal attack is not acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack. It's justified criticism of your editing that I stand by absolutely, and unfortunately I have the diffs to support it. I find it bizarre that it's something you'd want to draw attention to given that the ArbCom is looking at this issue. Please continue the discussion on article talk. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SV, without putting to fine a point on it I don't think you are in a position to criticize others' editing of BLPs. How about if everyone just drops it and gets back to editing the article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a clear and unjustified PA. "Please leave this article alone" is WP:OWN on your part and isn't acceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More on the Resource Use and Management Subgroup

[edit]

The IPCC WGIII report from the First Assessment does not even list Goklany as an author for the Resource Use and Management chapter, much less "principal author." Page 161 of that section lists the authors as R. Pentland (Canada), J. Theys (France), and I. Abrol (India). On p. 204 the U.S.A. as a nation is listed as Rapporteur, with nine individual names given. Goklany's name is listed first but the names aren't listed in any obvious order, so I'm not sure what to make of that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking that up. I've checked it too and concur with your assessment. We clearly can't cite him as an author, let a principal author, if he isn't even on the report's own author list. The listing of the names on p. 204 is a little odd at first sight but I think what it's meant to indicate is the nationality and status of the first-listed name. For instance, in the column alongside the USA one, Rihab Massoud is listed under "Saudi Arabia (Member)", which indicates that he's a member of the WG representing Saudi Arabia, whereas Goklany is a rapporteur of the WG representing the USA. He identifies himself as such in this 2005 submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The links to this is already in the section (2 up) #Representative_... - i've checked all the documents on the IPCC site that mentions Goklany or links to Resource Use and Management (for the FAR) - not saying that he wasn't, i just cannot verify it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Chris

[edit]

Chris, you're replacing a common term (principal author) for an uncommon one (rapporteur), and replacing a secondary source (World Economic Journal [13]) with what appears to be a primary one ("Climate change: the IPCC response strategies," Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1991, p. 204). Can you explain? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can. The WEJ is not a reliable source, in that it includes information about a living person ("Principal Author,") that is verifiably untrue. Hipocrite (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SV, are you aware that "principal author" and "rapporteur" are two different things? It's not replacing a common term with an uncommon equivalent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing things SV. And author blurb may count as "secondary"", but it's promotional material that's not independent of the source. Dubious claims sourced to promotional material aren't really reliable. Guettarda (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions:
1) Why are you assuming that "principal author" is equivalent to "rapporteur"? They're not automatically the same thing.
2) If Goklany was the principal author, why is he not listed as such in the report itself?
It seems to me that you're making some unverified (and possibly mistaken) assumptions here. I also disagree that "rapporteur" is an "uncommon" term. It might be in America but it's a standard term in international and European political and legal contexts, as our rapporteur article rightly notes. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also very common in scientific meetings and committees. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogging

[edit]

There is a post by Goklany on wattsupwith that [14] that may be worth quoting from, since it is his views: What with the numerous panel reports on Climategate and the IPCC’s veracity, warmists may have solved our global warming problems: lots of whitewash, which should increase the earth’s albedo, and — voila — we’ll have cooling! and so on William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Skepticism tag?

[edit]

This article is tagged with "environmental skepticism". However, it seems that Goklany is not a skeptic about climate change, but about common proposals for responding to climate change (i.e. global warming is happening, but global well being would be helped by responding differently and diverting scarce resources into tackling poverty instead). Should the tag be there? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some time later... I agree, and have removed the category. As I understand it, Category:Environmental skepticism is for people who take a skeptical stance of specific environmental theories, particularly global warming; the article doesn't make it clear that that's the case with Goklany. Robofish (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indur M. Goklany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mar 2020, Goks Uncertainty Language reverts

[edit]

Hi @Paulmlieberman, KipHansen, and Borealfad:, can you discuss the recent "goks uncertainty language" and related edits rather than simply reverting? KipHansen, perhaps you can provide wording you're more comfortable with? tedder (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to discuss! The content that KipHansen objects to were initially added (not by me) based on a NYTimes article from 2 March 2020. The paragraph in question also cited a 2018 Washington Post article. KipHansen's comment for his edit was: "I have deleted the contemporary newspaper report (published 2 March 2020) as inappropriate for Biography of a Living Person. These are simply allegations and poorly sourced. Newspaper articles attacking persons involved in controversies are not". I know BOLP has higher standards, but the Post and the Times are amongst the most trusted sources. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that reverting was a good action because the added stuff was poorly sourced. For example the added words In his new position, Mr. Goklany "...embarked on a campaign that has inserted misleading language about climate change — including debunked claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial — into the agency’s scientific reports..." are a direct quote from an opinionated source without in-text attribution, violating WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. And it's selective -- look a bit further and you would find that Hiroko Tabuchi admits that one of her sources does not say that debunked wording was used: The final language seemed “balanced enough, especially since it does mention potential adverse effects of warming on water resources,” wrote Ralph F. Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in an email. Nevertheless, Mr. Keeling — who was the lead author of the study cited by Mr. Goklany finding that more carbon dioxide helps plants use water more efficiently — also noted that the text “might have mentioned that warming may increase the water requirements for plant growth, which counters the CO2 impact on water-use efficiency.” Also, given that the article is only a few days old, I think WP:NOTNEWS might apply. In any case the insertion has been reverted on good-faith BLP grounds so I believe that this re-insertion without consensus may not have been in keeping with WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requirements. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Points well taken. Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmlieberman, KipHansen, Borealfad, Tedder, and Peter Gulutzan: I am unsure of why the NYT ref was removed.
Goklany pressured scientists to include misleading claims about global warming into at least nine different reports on environmental studies and impact statements on major watersheds in the American West, including debunked claims that increased carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is beneficial. The wording, known internally as the “Goks uncertainty language,” inaccurately claimed that there is a lack of consensus among scientists that the Earth is warming while pushing misleading interpretations of climate science. [1]
X1\ (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is something wrong with the explanations already supplied? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to look into it more later, as time permits (I am currently maxed on NYT viewing). More carbon dioxide helps plants use water more efficiently is not always true. Effects of climate change on plant biodiversity might be useful to see also. X1\ (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
X1\ You might try to view Hiroko Tabuchi's article via wayback. That doesn't replicate the article's illustration (photo?) of what she labels the "Goks uncertainty language" passage; however, you can find an example in https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/docs/irrigationdemands/modeluncertainty.pdf. It's the final paragraph. Curiously it's not part of https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/baseline/docs/irrigationdemand/irrigationdemands.pdf or any other complete usbr.gov document that I can find. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the Internet Archive option, Peter Gulutzan. X1\ (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that "admits that one of her sources does not say" is a very opinionated, or even dishonest, way of putting it? The language in question is "inserted misleading language about climate change — including debunked claims". When I have several sources, so what if one of them does not mention the debunked claims? The "including" already takes care of that. "Admit" is used when your position gets weaker, which it didn't.
We have a denialist layman (an engineer) editing text by scientists about climate change, inserting irrelevant stuff that makes it sound as if CO2 is your friend. This whole revert is a farce. The paragraph in question belongs in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To whom are you asking your questions, Hob Gadling, or are they rhetorical? Are you suggesting new wording & ref choice instead? If so, I am open to seeing them here; as following wp:5p avoids politicization of science. X1\ (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is about User:Peter Gulutzan's justification for User:KipHansen's deletion. I am arguing for reinserting the text. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tabuchi, Hiroko (March 2, 2020). "A Trump Insider Embeds Climate Denial in Scientific Research". The New York Times. Retrieved March 12, 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indur_M._Goklany&oldid=1212604703"