Talk:Lawrence Solomon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

No connection between Pollution Probe and Energy Probe since 1980.

The article states "He is the founder and managing director of the Energy Probe one of Canada's most prominent environmental agencies, as well as working with its predecessor and sister agency, Pollution Probe."

It is true that Lawrence Solomon worked with Pollution Probe prior to 1981 but Pollution Probe has not been a 'sister agency' to Pollution Probe since that date. The split between Pollution Probe and Energy Probe was adversarial and took place around 1979-1980. Since that time there has been absolutely no connection whatsoever between the two organizations.

Colin Isaacs, Executive Director of Pollution Probe 1982-1989 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.220.121 (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed "sister agency" from the sentence in question. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Lawrence Solomons blog post at nationalpost.com WP:BLP?

This WP:BLPN discussion may be of interest Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:William_Connolley for the writing of this article. Nsaa (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Date and place of birth

I've added an infobox, and I included his date and place of birth because it was in the lead, but I can't find a source. Does anyone know of one? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the birth year in this edit: [1] I think I found it by calculation from one of the sources available at the time. Sorry - I forgot which one but it probably said something like "LS was born exactly 50 years ago" or whatever, so I subtracted 50 from the publication date. Not sure. Mhym (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mhym, it's best to remove it if we don't have a source for it. Do you have a source for Bucharest? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Google gave me [2], which has both date and place, but has no inherent reliability, and a number of other sources obviously or likely copying Wikipedia, --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And after some digging, the Australian national library has his birth date as 1948 at [3]. The LOC has him with both 1949 [4] (once) and 1948 [5] (several times). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Environmentalist? Rv: why (2)

Undid revision 371530124 by 69.63.53.25 (talk)Solomon has self-declared in his newspaper column that he is an environmentalist is wrong. Self-descriptions aren't acceptable if contested William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not the only reason. Please look earlier on this page to see where the neutral opinion of an editor from the BLP noticeboard was that Solomon is, indeed, an environmentalist after I introduced new sources describing him as one. I suggest a self-revert. Cla68 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, excellent, once your reasons are pointed out as irreleveant you give them up and reach for new ones. It isn't clear to me why the neutral opinion of *an* editor gets a veto over actions on this page. That isn't the wiki way William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. By the way, aren't you engaged in a personal dispute off-wiki with Mr. Solomon. If so, why are you even touching this article? Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to ban editors from articles, especially when making perfectly valid edits. Verbal chat 11:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla is indulging in "if you can't argue the facts, argue the people". But since I'm *not* involved in an off-wiki conflict with LS, it is irrelevant. Cla, the COI notice board is open to you should you choose to pursue this William M. Connolley (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is this argument going on again? How many times do you guys want to pull the fact that he is an environmentalist? Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon one of Canada's leading environmentalists Seriously why is this being fought over again? mark nutley (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, your first source is an editorial in the MoonieRag. Not a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The moonierag? The Washington Times? Really, how did it get that nickname? CBC source is fine though ain`t it mark nutley (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: New York Times ok, Washington Post ok, but the Washington Times was founded and funded by the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon, better known as "the Moonies". It kind of shows in the quality of the reporting and especially the commentary. The CBC may pass the letter of the law, but it looks like a self-provided mini-bio, so its spirit-of-the-law reliability is at best questionable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt the CBC piece is a self provided bio most large news organizations have stuff pre-prepared for this kinda thing. And as it is a reliable source then were sorted for calling LS what he is, an environmentalist mark nutley (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet I doubt your doubt (and let us not forget your reputation for evaluating sources). Let us compare:

He is author or co-author of seven books, including Energy Shock (Doubleday), In the Name of Progress (Doubleday), Breaking Up Ontario Hydro's Monopoly (Energy Probe), Power at What Cost (Doubleday), Toronto Sprawls (University of Toronto Press) and, most recently, The Deniers (Richard Vigilante Books), which was the No. 1 environmental bestseller in Canada and the U.S. in 2008. [6]

to:

He is author or co-author of seven books, including Energy Shock (Doubleday), In the Name of Progress (Doubleday), Breaking Up Ontario Hydro's Monopoly (Energy Probe), Power at What Cost (Doubleday), Toronto Sprawls (University of Toronto Press) and, most recently, The Deniers (Richard Vigilante Books). [7]

Can you spot the similarity? And the env text is duplicated too William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant, the source is reliable, if they got it from energy probe is beside the point, we use what the sources say. And for you guys to say the founder of canada`s biggest enviro group is not an enviro is beyond parody. And do not lecture me on source evaluation WMC, at least i have never used my websites or my blog as a source in WP mark nutley (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Times fits WP's definition of a reliable source. I've used it many times in articles. Bill Gertz' column, in particular, provides valuable information on defense and military-related topics. As Alex Harvey pointed out above, Solomon is an environmentalist and has been described as so in reliable sources. I'm going to revert it back if no one has done so already. And WMC, you should not be touching this article. Cla68 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see any RS that categorically calls this guy an environmentalist. Verbal chat 20:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources shown on this page, so here choose one of these yourself [8] mark nutley (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, for me that link gives me a grand total of 3 (three) hits, one the WT editorial above, one an editorial in The Metropolitain (whatever that is), and the third an announcement by a talk of Solomon. None of those a reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There's an academic paper about propaganda on Wikipedia that calls Solomon an environmentalist. See Oboler, Andre; Steinberg, Gerald; and Stern, Rephael. "The Political Framing of Political NGOs through Criticism Elimination", Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 7(4), 2010. It says: "Entire topic areas can be framed with a particular view by users with knowledge, determination, and power within the system. Environmentalist Lawrence Solomon (2008) explored this in Wikipedia articles on global warming and climate change research." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Metropolitain is a canadian newspaper mark nutley (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation here, there is nothing controversial about calling him an environmentalist, and it's clearly well-sourced. I've restored it. ATren (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate, we have:

1. he self-identifies as an environmentalist,
2. he's been identified by others as an environmentalist in reliable sources,
3. he founded an environmental organization

Are we really still disputing this? Jesus. ATren (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, all of this is still the self-identification problem. As I demonstrated to MN, so-called "RS"'s are simplt repeating LS's characterisation of himself. You can't use throwaway lines for such statements (and that includes SV's paper). And your point 3 is disputable too William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Solomon is also noted as a leading environmentalist This book will do the trick mark nutley (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, will you please spend some time with evaluating your sources? Simply typing search terms into Google (X) is misleading. In this particular case, there is no evidence at all that the terms are used together (indeed, the minimal preview suggests the opposite), and the book is an exceedingly out-of-print college text collection. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephan all the terms are used together see here please [9] Second book in the list printed in 2004 mark nutley (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I don't know what you see there - I get a partial page of an essay by Solomon, with the highlighted term being "Lawence Solomon" identifying him as the author of that piece, and no detailed preview that would even show the term "environmentalist". If you are referring to the blurb on the results page, well, that's another blurb, not a RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Look again Stephan it clearly says Solomon is also noted as a leading environmentalist, and in the late 1970s he was an advisor to President Carter's which is the intro to the essay, it is not a blurb is it mark nutley (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither of us seems to have the actual book. But no, it's an essay by Solomon - unless he is in the habit of referring to himself in the third person, it's not part of the essay, but part of the author blurb. Finally going from a 4 line excerpt is rarely acceptable - maybe it says "Miller raises that absurd claim that..." just before that snippet. In general, looking for sources to support an existing opinion is not useful. You look for sources first and then form your opinion based on what they say. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but this seems to be an issue of User:William M. Connolley carrying an off-wiki dispute onto Wikipedia, based on what I'm seeing above. He probably shouldn't be editing this article. Kelly ^hi! 07:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is my opinion that you are wrong and that trying to force an editor off the page in this way is uncivil. Focus on improving the article please. Verbal chat 07:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's respectfully disagree. Surely if Mr. Connolley is in the right, his opinions will eventually prevail without his personal intervention, based on reliable sources, of course. Kelly ^hi! 08:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Verbal, and so did WP:COIN when it came up a while ago. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, there are numerous reliable sources who call him an environmentalist, including the academic paper I posted above. So what is the BLP issue? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• I just added the book ref i found, this should now be the end of this issue mark nutley (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• Actually, they are numerous only if you include very small numerals - unusually small for someone who allegedly has been active as an environmentalist for decades. The paper you found is among the best of the few, however, it only mentions him in passing while referencing one of his atrocious columns (also in passing, but that's neither here nor there). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether it mentions him in passing; it calls him an environmentalist. I'm still curious to know what the BLP issue could be. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what is the BLP issue? Kelly ^hi! 08:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

@Kelly: well, if your opinion is correct you too will prevail without you having to talk here. So you could take your own advice William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why take the debate down this tack? I'm an uninvolved editor. I was just commenting on the evidence presented above that you've got some kind of off-wiki dispute with the article subject. I think that's pretty undisputable. I'm just saying you should leave this bio to editors who don't have a dog in the fight. Kelly ^hi! 10:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate forum for this discussion, take it elsewhere. Verbal chat 10:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And the appropriate forum is....? Kelly ^hi! 10:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

why take the debate down this tack? - yes - why *did* you take the debate down this track? It doesn't seem at all helpful William M. Connolley (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? If you haven't been involved in an off-wiki dispute with the article subject, then please set me straight if I am mistaken. But I would really prefer to debate the topic with other uninvolved editors rather than get down into some mudslinging ditch. Kelly ^hi! 10:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Environmentalist"

If Solomon has decided to label himself an "Environmentalist", and reliable sources have called him such, then that's what he is. Nobody owns the definition.

This reminds me of the reaction to Sarah Palin identifying as a feminist. Just because political objectives differ, it doesn't mean the person is not entitled to the identification. Kelly ^hi! 08:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that when a contentious or self-aggrandizing label stems entirely from self-description we ought not to use it. But in this case we have the CBC and an academic paper. I can see an argument that the former may have deferred to Solomon's description without checking, because it's just a blurb. But with a couple of academics, where the focus is not on Solomon or what he calls himself, we have to assume they were choosing their words carefully. They may not have been, but it's hard to argue otherwise. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Kelly ^hi! 08:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody owns the definition - exactly true. In particular, LS doesn't own it, and can't change the meaning by applying it to himself if inappropriate. Or rather, *he* can but we should not follow him William M. Connolley (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So what is the essence of the definition that would allow us to know when it's being used inappropriately? For example, you can't reasonably argue you're a feminist if you don't support equal rights for women. You can't be an animal rights advocate if you think it's sometimes okay to use animals. You're not a vegan if you sometimes enjoy steak and chips. What's the equivalent essence of being an environmentalist? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you try reading environmentalist? That seems about the right direction. EP seems to be mostly an anti-nuke org William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Being against nuclear war seems kind of environmentalist to me. Kelly ^hi! 10:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Err, you might want to read up on what is going on. EP is anti-nuke-power, not war. Thought I've seen no indication that they are in favour of nuclear war William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, point granted. Does anti-nuke-power disqualify one from being an environmentalist? Kelly ^hi! 10:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Energy Probe, a Canadian environmentalist group So your wrong there as well WMc mark nutley (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. But it doesn't necessarily *make* him an env either. It depends on his motives. For example, he might be anti-nuke because he is pro-coal William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain what disqualifies Solomon from being an "environmentalist"? Kelly ^hi! 10:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC) (see below)

(edit conflict)

WMC what make`s him an enviro are all the sources which have been presented above. So you move onto EP not being an enviro group, yet a link is provided proving you wrong again, and you move onto another strawman argument, just give it up already mark nutley (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could summarize for a simple soul like me. Kelly ^hi! 10:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for simple explanation

In light of the present dispute, what exactly disqualifies Solomon from being described as an "environmentalist"? Kelly ^hi! 10:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure "disqualifies" is a good word, but The Deniers is a hint William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather than leaving us clues as though it's a treasure hunt, please tell us why he's not an environmentalist. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at that page? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC, are you saying that Solomon can't be an environmentalist because he may support contrarian views on the theory of human-caused global warming? If so, do you have a source that backs you up on your definition or is it just your personal opinion? Cla68 (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. But let's compare your reaction to Kelly's Being against nuclear war seems kind of environmentalist to me - here we have someone making a rather vague assertion *in favour* of LS being env, and you've no complaints at all. I certainly think that one can just as well argue that being opposed to the entire theory of GW makes it likely that you aren't an environmentalist. When your opposition to nukes turns out to be because you like coal and the free market, that is evidence in favour William M. Connolley (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If a person spent their whole life doing stuff like defending redwood trees from getting cut down, but thought the idea of man-made global warming was BS, could that person be considered an environmentalist? (no offense intended, just trying to cut to the heart of the dispute) Kelly ^hi! 12:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC is currently editing. If he doesn't reply to this thread shortly, I think we can consider it closed. Cla68 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with WMC? He isn't the only one objecting. Verbal chat 12:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

@K: could you make up your mind whether you're prepared to talk to me or not? I saw your But I would really prefer to debate the topic with other uninvolved editors rather than get down into some mudslinging ditch and took it as a contemptuous refusal to talk further. was I wrong? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

@Cla: err yes indeed. Could you try to avoid personalising this please William M. Connolley (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC has written critically about Solomon on his blog

Two years ago, WMC questioned Solomon and Energy Probe on his blog. It is a highly critical post, calling Solomon a "frothing-at-the-mouth GW septic" (note "septic") and Energy Probe "pro-property rights right-wing pro-coal astroturf group". He clearly has a critical opinion on this LP, and he clearly is trying to impose this view here by removing the environmentalist label, which is supported in sources and non-controversial, except to WMC.

This evidence of pushing one's opinion on-wiki would be exhibit "A" in disqualifying any other editor from contributing here, but as we all know the rules are different for WMC and those who support him. This is clearly a COI, clearly a case of someone pushing their POV on wiki, and clearly a BLP violation merely by his presence here editing this article. But nobody stops him, and his friends bully off any opposition. This conflict is a microcosm of the entire history of the CC debate, especially when it comes to BLPs of people they don't like.

Verbal please specify the reasons for the POV tag, or I will remove it first thing tomorrow. Specifically, you should address my 3 points above: that he self-identifies as one, that others identify him as one in RSs, and that he's founded an organization which reliable sources have described as an environmental group. ATren (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

ATren... wasn't there a COIN thread on this (and an ANI one)? Do you remember its (their) conclusion? Why are you ignoring that? If you have problems - then you know that COIN is the correct venue - it certainly isn't article talk-space.... certainly not with this (not even veiled personal attack) Perhaps you should take it up with arbitration? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC) [it is also incorrect that it is only WMC who thinks that "environmentalist" is controversial here --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)].

Actually, I don't think that the COIN is the appropriate venue. The Ethics Noticeboard would be the more appropriate forum, but it appears that Wikipedia doesn't have one of those. That says something about Wikipedia's current governance, or lack thereof, doesn't it? Anyway, a post at the enforcement board is probably in order, as soon as I have time to spare from trying to meet the case evidence deadline. Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't all shout at once

Ugh, what a tedious argument. Yes I have read it and the archived discussion. I have had a long around at this environmentalist thing. As it is not a qualification but rather a creed I think self declaration is an important consideration but actually the expression which seems to be used by and about Solomon most (and about Energy Probe) is "free-market environmentalist". Does anybody regard the claim to being a "Free-market environmentalist" gives a false impression or can we settle on that compromise description? --BozMo talk 20:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A free-market environmentalist is still an environmentalist, is it not? Cla68 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe and maybe not. AFAICT I think people who use the expression are often making a point about incorrect preconceptions associated with the term "environmentalist" in the same way some people describe themselves as Catholic Anglicans. He may not want people assuming he has a ponytail and hugs trees every day, or is very left wing. And if it describes him in an accurate way he likes (apparently) and is sufficiently specific to avoid other people considering it disingenuous I think it might be a solution. --BozMo talk 21:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

BozMo, is there any source which calls him a free-market environmentalist? Has he called himself that? Has anyone called him that? The man founded an environmental group and labels himself an environmentalist, and others have called him that too in reliable sources. This never-ending dispute is simply POV pushing by those who don't believe a GW skeptic can be an environmentalist -- in fact, WMC alludes to that very opinion on his blog. When are these tendentious editors going to be stopped from pushing their POV on this BLP? ATren (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already answered that question if you will bear me the courtesy of actually reading what I wrote. --BozMo talk 13:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Free-market environmentalist describes his position completely - I found a ref, off his own site, that describes him as such - [10] - in the section "Setting Up Fronts", "As pointed out by the free-market environmentalist Larry Solomon of Energy Probe, the "Boreal Conservation Framework" actually amounts to a massive resource giveaway requiring government subsidies, as industrial development in the far northern boreal forest is currently uneconomic under market conditions." I hope this resolves this once and for-all. Hipocrite (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Last call on the {{disputed}} tag...

I asked Verbal above for justification of the {{disputed}} tag, but he may have missed it. I have presented three points that support Solomon being labeled environmentalist: (1) he claims it himself, (2) others have called him that in reliable sources (though it is argued that those sources are not strong), (3) he founded an organization (Energy Probe) which reliable sources call an "environmental group" and an "environmental research group". Point (3) is compelling, since it strongly enforces the first two by providing evidence of his environmental activity. I therefore believe the disputed tag is unwarranted, and I plan to remove it unless someone presents a reliable source that indicates otherwise. ATren (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How about you actually read the discussion above instead of ignoring it and starting all over again? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I did. The sourcing is more than sufficient for me, especially considering his easily verifiable record of involvement in environmental causes and groups. I believe your dispute of the label is spurious, you've provided no counter evidence, so I will remove the tag if there is no other evidence presented. ATren (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a discussion over the disputed tag. I personally believe this article is written in a neutral manner, the sources are fair and represneted accurately, and the tag can come off. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been 2 days with no activity here. I am removing the tag. ATren (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I cannot find exactly why there is a disputed tag. I noticed the description of Energy Probe here does not match the one in the article on Energy Probe by the way. --BozMo talk 21:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care about the dispute tag. But I've removed "env", per the discussion above. Hopefully at some point ATren will find the time to read and answer it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverted you per the discussion above, and all the sources presented mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC, you've completely ignored my points above. If Mark hadn't reverted I would have. As I've said I read the sections and there is no good argument for removing the label. ATren (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also point out that environmentalist can be an occupation, what do you call the guy who runs greenpeace? He`s an enviro and that`s his occupation right? mark nutley (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is an occupation if you get paid for it. Otherwise it is a vocation. You've produced zero evidence that he is paid for it William M. Connolley (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don`t need to, your the one saying enviro is not an occupation. Anyway he must get paid for running Energy Probe, so there ya go. mark nutley (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have any evidence he is paid by Energy Probe, it should go into the article. If you haven't, you should stop asserting it William M. Connolley (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, ignore this nonsense. There is no requirement that the label be an occupation. ATren (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Working for Greenpeace makes you an activist (or an accountant, manager, clerk, custodian...). Guettarda (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda, "environmental activist" is probably a more accurate label for what goes in the infobox and I'll put it there. Also, I'll email Solomon and ask if he has any objection to being labled as a "free-market environmentalist." Cla68 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla, I've already emailed Solomon, and he replied; I don't have time to post a detailed reply right now, but I will post it later tonight. ATren (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I already emailed him also. Cla68 (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Environmental activist"? What source calls him that? Guettarda (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Free market environmentalist"

I have reverted "free market environmentalist" back to the unadorned environmentalist for two reasons:

• I emailed Lawrence Solomon about the free-market environmentalist label, and he has indicated that it does not describe him, and in fact, that it has been used pejoratively by left-leaning organizations.
• the single source which calls him that (and only in passing, BTW) is a document hosted at probeinternational.com but which originally appeared in a magazine called Canadian Dimension. Canadian Dimension is "a Canadian leftist magazine".

Being that I see no reliably sourced justification for the "free market" label other than a partisan magazine, and given that the BLP himself considers the term inaccurate and pejorative, the term is not appropriate and I have removed it. ATren (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Generic "environmentalist" appears to be the safest, most neutral term to use. Cla68 (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the majority of sources call him an environmentalist with just the one calling him a free market one mark nutley (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So, because the individual presented wants to be seen as an "environmentalist," but liberal authors don't call him an environmentalist, instead a "free market environmentalist" (which, we all agree, describes him more fully), we decide to ignore one PoV entirely? That seems like a violation of NPOV to me. But, it's become clear the skeptic cabal has shown up here and will do what it normally does to drive away NPOV editors, so I'll leave. Hipocrite (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't agree he's a "free market environmentalist". But, thank you for leaving. ATren (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a personal issue with what you just said, Hipocrite, but I'll take it up on your talk page. Cla68 (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

SO do I: you're a "skeptic" not a skeptic. But never mind: FME is supported by RS; you just happen to dislike it. LS's own opinion on the matter (even if we knew it; an unverified email is worthless and should not have been mentioned; we should certainly give it zero weight) is irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There is but one source calling him a FME, dozens calling him an enviro. The weight is on what the majority of sources call him, not one partisan left wing rag mark nutley (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because one PoV is less common than others doesn't mean we can completly exclude it from articles. The fact that liberals call him a "free market environmentalist" is sourced, and verifiable, from his own site. Hipocrite (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because one PoV is less common than others doesn't mean we can completly exclude it from articles Of course we can and it is done all the time in the CC articles, i believe the usual argument is weight mark nutley (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, then, you'll be able to show me where the notable liberal PoV that he's a "free market environmentalist" is addressed in other articles, right? You'll also be able to show peer reviewed studies showing that only a tiny minority of informed individuals think he's either not an environmentalist or not a free-market environmentalist, right? Hipocrite (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Only a tiny minority of people think he is not an environmentalist, and they are either here on this talk page or on desmogblog spouting the usual junk. The rest of your comment makes as little sense as those who oppose calling an environmentalist an environmentalist mark nutley (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we are to trust a single, very partisan magazine for Solomon's label, and put that in the lede? Is that what you are saying? Because that opens up quite a wide door on all the BLPs in this topic area. I'm sure Heartland Institute will have some very interesting labels to put in the lede of the Climategate scientists' BLPs. NPOV demands that the standard has to be level across all articles, and if that means lowering the standard here to the point where partisan sources are allowed to define this BLP, then it should be applied to all. I prefer a higher standard, but if this small groups of editors absolutely insists in pushing partisan opinion prominently into these few skeptic BLPs, then it must be done in all BLPs. ATren (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV demands that the standard has to be level across all articles - whilst I agree that consistency is good, I'm dubious about you sourcing such an assertion to NPOV. Could you quote which lines of the policy state this? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know it's not stated explicitly in the policy pages (because they tend to deal with individual articles) but do you dispute the basic premise that NPOV implies consistent standards? ATren (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted per BLP

Verbal reverted a bunch of my edits, and in the process, he included the free-market environmentalist label in the lede, which is cited to a single person writing for an obscure liberal Canadian Magazine. This is clearly not notable and given LS's own indication that he considers it a pejorative, it is a BLP violation to include it. In my version (which Verbal reverted) I included the "free-market environmental" claim with its source in the references section, but it does NOT belong in the lede. I have cited BLP exemption in my revert. ATren (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Note also: one of my edits apparently removed the disputed/npov tags, which I did not intend to do, and which I have restored (even though I believe them to be wrong) until this dispute is settled. ATren (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC) This was the offending edit, which I am now working to undo. ATren (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC) OK, as of this edit, I have restored the material I deleted (mostly my own recent additions, but also the disputed/pov tags). I don't know how that happened, but I found it strange at the time of the offending edit that I got an edit conflict even though there was no other intervening edit, so it may have been a software glitch. ATren (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

disputed and npov tags

The tags went up shortly before protection, so let's start discussing it so they can come down when protection expires. Is this solely about the environmentalist label? If so, what's the problem? Why is this so controversial? Solomon wrote a book called "The Conserver Solution" which helped inspire a conservation movement. He started Energy Probe, which is clearly an environmental group, and described that way in many reliable sources (despite WMC's POV that it is not). Now, recent references to Solomon have referred to him by his roles as writer and/or EP researcher, but that does not disqualify him from the environmentalist label.

I am shocked that this has gone on for so long -- two years the same group of editors has persistently (and tendentiously) fought the environmentalist label. Solomon himself has even commented on the folly of it [11]. This all seems to have started because one single person, who also happens to be a Wikipedia editor, formed the opinion that Solomon really isn't an environmentalist [12] and has relentlessly pushed that opinion here for two years. In fact, in his own blog posting where he expresses his unfounded views about Solomon, he admits that he couldn't find anything negative ("Thanks to all those who commented and/or mailed. Probably the most interesting thing about all this is the lack of info about him, which is curious for 'Canadas leading envirnomentalist'."), yet he has still pushed that opinion here for two years.

So the question is: does anyone have any reliable source which questions Solomon's environmentalist credentials? And if not, why are you still edit warring on this? This should be a no brainer, but because of a few tendentious editors (at least one of which should be banned by now, because he's done as much damage as any sock), we are still arguing this obvious point.

Now, if someone can't come up with some evidence to counter the very solid evidence already presented on his environmentalist credentials, can we put this to rest once and for all?

As to the "free-market" label -- it appeared as a passing reference in ONE very partisan and obscure source, and is not at all appropriate for the lede. But I have kept the source in the footnote, qualified, to reflect that one person has called him "free market". Even that is more weight than it deserves. ATren (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You are censoring one PoV because it's liberal. Until such time as the text makes it clear that a reliable source - one Lawrence Solomon has himself reprinted has called him a "free-market environmentalist" the NPOV tag must remain. Hipocrite (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: Are you saying that POV dispute is about whether the phrase "free-market" is used? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's why I added the tag - because you censored "free-market" due to the fact that it was the opinion of a liberal source - above Atren wrote he was removing FME because it "has been used pejoratively by left-leaning organizations." Hipocrite (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: I believe that you have me confused with another editor. I don't believe that I removed "free-market". In any case, what do the sources say? Do they describe with as an free-market environmentalist or just an environmentalist? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I did. Sources disagree. Some sources call him an Environmentalist. Other sources call him a free-market environmentalist. ATren believes only liberal sources call him a free-market environmentalist, and so that PoV can be ignored. Hipocrite (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the sources call him an environmentalist—such as the CBC; the National Post (which he writes a column for); the Washington Times, and this academic paper. Or they refer in similar terms to his group, Energy Probe. Apparently one source, Canadian Dimension, has called him a free-market environmentalist. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not true, SV. ATren wrote that Solomon said to him that "[FME] has been used pejoratively by left-leaning organizations." Are you failing to assume ATren's good faith? Hipocrite (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Canadian Dimension, but all sources have a bias. We can't reject a source simply because it is liberal-leaning anymore that we can reject a source because it's conservative-leaning. If the majority of sources describe him as an "environmentalist", then that's how we should describe him. However, to resolve this dispute, how about we add a sentence in the body that Canadian Dimension has decribed Solomon as a "free-market environmentalist"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Dimension is the only source which called him "free market" -- an obscure left-leaning magazine that describes itself as "a magazine which shows there is an alternative to the corporate agenda and the dictates of the global market" [13]. That's the source (and the only source) which Hipocrite wants to use to justify labeling a BLP in the lede. It's a travesty the way these editors push their POV in these BLPs. ATren (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what you said when you wrote "[FME] has been used pejoratively by left-leaning organizations." That's "organizations" - plural. I assumed good faith on your part - were you misrepresenting things? Hipocrite (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is one source for this, an obscure Canadian magazine. Stop pushing your POV here. Your actions are no different than someone adding opinion from the Heritage Foundation to the lede of Michael Mann or some or some other Climate scientist. If the playing field were level, you and WMC would already be blocked for this kind of tendentious editing of BLPs. ATren (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, do you accept AQFK's compromise suggestion? Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know - it appears to be a specific attribution. I wonder if we could find some of the other "organizations" that ATren referred to. In the absence of them, yes, that's fine. I wonder, are you going to file and RFE for ATren saying that I engage in "tendentious editing of BLPs," which, in addition to being far more offensive than accusations of cabalism, is transparently false - my edits to skeptical BLPs have been assiduously not tendentious, and no one has presented any evidence anywhere to the contrary. Hipocrite (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is already there -- it's in the footnote where all the other sources are described. It doesn't deserve more than that, because it is a non-notable opinion from a partisan source. In fact, it's so obscure, even that's too much. ATren (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with AQFK's suggestion. If we ever find anyone other than Canadian Dimension that has called him a free-market environmentalist, we can add them later. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

SV, do we typically add the opinions of partisan sources to BLPs? What would happen if someone introduced Heritage Foundation opinion into a mainstream-view climate scientist's BLP? This source does not belong here, period. ATren (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, if Canadian Dimension is allowed here, why is Lawrence Solomon's published opinion of WMC not permitted? That was published at CBS News and is far more notable than Canadian Dimension, yet it's been kept out of WMC's BLP. This is a double standard, plain and simple. ATren (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Because we don't use unreliable sources - as you may remember, that LS piece is not a reliable source, in that it includes things we know to be false. Further, we don't use opinion pieces in BLPs - the CD piece doesn't appear to be an opinion piece, nor does the Western Standard piece below. Still further, we don't edit articles in ways we don't feel improve the encyclopedia to get vengeance on others for providing better arguments in content disputes, per WP:POINT. Hipocrite (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop Wikilawyering. CD is a partisan source, just like Solomon on WMC. Accepting one and rejecting the other is POV, plain and simple. But then, pretty much every article in this topic area is POV and has been since 2004, and you've been a part of that, so I don't expect you to recognize it. ATren (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is one LS piece that contains false material because he misunderstood how WP works, but the rest of his articles are reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. This one, for example, contains opinion you (Hipocrite) may disagree with, but nothing demonstrably false. ATren (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting - [14] - WP:NEWSBLOG of Western Standard - conservative, calls him a FME while awarding him something. Hipocrite (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Compromise

As a compromise, I've removed the tags and the disputed sentence. The first paragraph now reads:

"Lawrence Solomon is the founder and executive director of Energy Probe, a Canadian environmental agency. His writing has appeared in a number of newspapers, including The National Post where he has a column, and he is the author of several books on energy resources, urban sprawl, and global warming, among them The Conserver Solution (1978), Energy Shock (1980), Toronto Sprawls: A History (2007), and The Deniers (2008).

By the way, I intended to add that I was changing this to the edit summary, but I mistakenly added that I'd added an infobox, and tidied. That was an error, caused by answering the phone when I was supposed to be concentrating. I'm mentioning it only because this is a contentious point, and I don't want anyone to think the edit summary was deliberately misleading. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

SV: You're not the first to accidentally put in an incorrect edit summary. When I've did it, I self-reverted and then remade my change with a correct edit summary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. I'll do that in future, thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Birth data

Enquire has added time and place of birth to the article. This is, in principle, welcome. However, IIRC, this has come up earlier - the problem is that we could not come up with any source for that data. Enquire, can we use whatever source you got the data from in this article? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This sentence makes very little sense

"According to Elaine Kurtenbach for America's Intelligence Wire, Solomon discovered and revealed that the IPCC used a flawed and non-peer reviewed paper by James Hansen and Eigil Friis-Christensen as support for the IPCC's conclusions on the correlation between land based global temperatures that had been contaminated by proximity to expanding urban areas with rising atmospheric CO2.[22]"

Aside from being run-on, it seems to say "They used a flawed paper to support their conclusion that the correlation with land-based temperatures that had been contaminated by rising UHI with rising CO2."

Can someone please reorganize that sentence into several that make sense? Perhaps removing "that had been" would help a little. But I still can't be sure what it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.224.102 (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've taken it out. After some searching, I find no evidence for the claim beyond Wikipedia mirrors, and I can't find a AIW article on that topic at that date. I don't know why Elaine Kurtenbach's opinion should be of general interest. I find no shared paper by Hansen and Friis-Christensen, either, and, given that they have very different opinions on climate change, find it unlikely that they have written one. We do not need to promulgate misconceptions by non-notable commentators based on dodgy sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference I deleted

Earlier today I deleted a copyvio link, I've thought about it and now deleted the entire reference to the article he wrote called "How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles". The link is dead of course but anyone looking at this reference would think that Connolley actually rewrote 5,428 climate articles, which of course is ridiculous. We've never had anywhere near that many articles relating to climate change. At the time it was written, Connolley had edited that many articles - many edits certainly being your standard vandalism reverts, etc. That link is not just dead, Solomon doesn't link to it here[15] and I wouldn't be surprised if the article hasn't been removed from the National Post website. The article's actual text included "All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions… In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement." Not exactly what the headline said, but the wording implies that all of these deletions, blocks, etc were related to climate change. The inaccuracy of that may be why the article isn't on the website now. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Bit incestuous, this article: Solomon wrote 8 unreliable articles about Wikipedia, and it appears that no-one else noticed. Where's the reliable third party source required by WP:SOURCES? . . dave souza, talk 17:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional detail on positions on climate change getting deleted

Perhaps I need some guidance - I have been trying to add additional detail on Solomon's positions with respect to climate change - my additions that quote from Solomon's own work are getting deleted. I am trying to be neutral, but I believe that the point of an article on a person should legitimately convey their work and is enhanced by conveying positions they have taken, even if those positions might be considered controversial by some. I am trying to be careful to cite referenced statements by Solomon - if there are additional steps I need to take to ensure that this is done in a neutral and reference-able way could someone please let me know (I presume that "neutral" doesn't mean to make the article neutral about the topics he writes on, but to make it neutral in terms of not misrepresenting his writings or position) DiligentDavidG (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that, in general, a limited amount of direct quotation is fine. However, I notice that this debate has two sources - one just saying that the debate is going to happen and the other a very partisan article by Solomon. It's not clear that this debate was notable. Unless some third party reported the debate, I think most of the paragraph should be deleted. The quote from Solomon you tried to add is from his book, not the debate - as he himself says in the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If Solomon is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, I would have thought it not be necessary that an event he took part in be notable as an event, if the content of that event provides information useful to the understanding of the person. But fair enough on the citation being from his book - I presumed from the blog that he would have been recapping information he presented from his book during the debate - I will work at a revision to clarify this DiligentDavidG (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutral means giving due weight to majority views, and in articles about minority views such as Solomon's the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. Quoting his views out of context looks like giving them "equal validity" and doing it from his own blog or other writings is unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. So, context from a mainstream secondary source is needed. Please stop edit warring to include this disputed text, you'd already been asked for third party reports. . dave souza, talk 16:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not an article on climate change, it is an article on a person. I don't think there is a majority or minority view on the writings or other views expressed by Lawrence Solomon - or is there another view on his work ?DiligentDavidG (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You've explained about using his book although we must never presume. I also agree that we need to decide why the debate should be included and whether it belongs here. I also think you should read WP:NPOV - we don't say articles should be neutral, we say they should be written from a neutral point of view which is not, as you should see if you read the policy, the same thing. We only add significant material to biographies, and not everything he has done is significant. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)