Talk:Lawrence Solomon/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Lawrence Solomon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notability

Please, do a google search on his name. Check out the WashTimes article which calls him the "heralded Canadian environmentalist". Mhym (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. Could you please provide references to substantial coverage by reliable sources that is specifically about him, not his book? Sandstein (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, the CSPAN presentation, the interviews with the Spectator and National Review were made by Solomon, not his book. This is all open for interpretation. For example, let us ask whether Einstein is notable if not for relativity theory? The point is - people are notable for what they produce. Mhym (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean coverage about him, not media content by him. Is there any? Sandstein (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. I listed some in the external links and references. I am sure there are more, maybe a dozen or two if you don't count bloggers (and why not?), but he is obviously not Karl Rove, so I doubt there are hundreds of articles on him. I personally am an inclusionist, so I think with his latest CSPAN appearance, book reviews and other interviews he is clearly notable as a global warming denier. But I do understand if people are doubtful. Somebody down the road will surely put this page up for deletion. (it was actually speedy deleted once for copyvio). My main concern is that so many people despise what says about WP and global warming, they could be biased. Mhym (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Soloman is especially notable himself as a global warming denier (although he may be such), but rather as an author who documents significant opposition by notable scientists to the notion of anthropogenic global warming. Every one of his dozens of articles in The Deniers series was a close examination of each scientist's respective opinions about global warming. This alone is reason for notability. Bushcutter (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage

A sample gleaned from Google News:

Bailey, Issac J. (2008-06-20). "Skeptics on climate are worth a listen". The Sun News (Myrtle Beach, South Carolina). Retrieved 2008-06-25.
Milke, Mark. "The end of the fake consensus on global warming". The Calgary Herald. Retrieved 2008-06-25.
McIlheran, Patrick (2007-02-05). "You cannot call them deniers until you read this". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 2008-06-25.
Phillips, Melanie (2008-05-20). "Brr! The Climate Cools For Reality-Deniers". The Spectator. Retrieved 2008-06-25.
Forsmark, David (04-17-2008). "The Deniers". FrontPageMagazine.com. Retrieved 2008-06-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Sterling, Burnett (2008-03-27). "The Deniers: Now read the book". planet gore. The National Review. Retrieved 2008-06-25.
Green, Kenneth P. (04-17-2008). "The New Dissidents". The American. Retrieved 2008-06-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Corcoran, Terence (2008-03-31). "The Deniers: Now read the book". The National Post. Retrieved 2008-06-25.

A Google News archive search turns up 122 hits since 2000; the majority refer to this particular Lawrence Solomon. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The game, at least as proposed above, was coverage about *him* not his book. Of course you're free to paly other games if you prefer William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to play games, just trying to address the notability question. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants, they can always nominate this article for deletion, but I don't think they'll be successful in getting it deleted. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia?

Ok, so he wrote one anti-Wikipedia piece. Do we have any evidence that he is known for his criticism of Wikipedia as the article claims? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am actually not sure. He wrote at least two (see refs) and talked about it at length on CSPAN. I found a bunch of blogs, etc. quoting his anti-WP articles, but I don't think I want to push this point too much though. Feel free to reword this. Mhym (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure it bears mention in the article at all though. I mean we don't have anything like a source calling him a critic of Wikipedia. And people are interviewed on CSPAN all the freaking time. Saying he's known for it is at minimum likely original research. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That sound right. I would still mention his criticism, as it is quoted in a bunch of other sources, but would separate it from the "best known" sentence. Mhym (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"bunch of other sources"... as in reliable sources?
—Apis (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, CSPAN is one. (I don't have the tape ATM, but could probably get it) ff m 16:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Refs wanted

I asked for a ref and Mhyn kindly provided one [1] but I don't think its good enough. It needs to be written by someone other than LS! LS looks to me like a blogger with a small right-wing pro-coal astroturf group Energy Probe. Notability is severely doubtful. I've peppered it with a few more cn's. I do *not* put it forward as a reliable source, but for interest I refer you to http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/06/who_is_lawrence_solomon_and_wh.php William M. Connolley (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I added a link to his complete list of articles which include the date of publication, etc. I think given this detailed info anyone with Lexis Nexis (not me) can verify that. I think WP typically admit such careful sources as reliable, since if they are fraudulent ALL of this is false and that's easy to check. As for whether he is a blogger, I don't care either way and I don't think WP should. Say, Andrew Sullivan is also a blogger but his notability is not a question due to his other appearances. In my opinion, Solomon's exposure in print makes him notable as a global warming critic. There aren't many of them around anyway, and he seems prominent enough, given all those interviews in the MSM. So I say let's keep him. Mhym (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an author's list of articles on his blog is good enough. There has to be a degree of external certification. If he is a non notable guy trying to attract attention what has he got to lose? The ones I have looked at seem to be rather unprofessional in tone. --BozMo talk 13:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't use refs form his own blog and his own website, if anyone challenges them. You added http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/columnists/LawrenceSolomon.html for being assoc with Carter; but thats just his std puff-bio. We can tell thats its not a RS, because it contains the assertion that he is "one of Canada's leading environmentalists" - at least, I assume you're not proposing that we include that in the article? As to the NYRoB, well, I've found it: in 1985 he had a letter published [2], to which the original author replied "I am baffled my Mr. Solomon's reaction to my review...". So I think that "he has published in..." is really rather misleading. We could write "In 1985 he once had a letter published in..." but I think that sounds a bit desperate, no? Doesn't this sound just a little bit as though LS is struggling to find something to put in his bio? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, 1986 [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if this sarcastic tone is useful ("I assume you are not proposing..."). Also, I think you are confusing me with a promoter of him and his views, whatever they are. I am totally neutral and committed to NPOV. If you feel the WSJ and NYRoB are unrelated to his work, feel free to remove them. If you and others feel him running the coffee shop is as notable as his books and articles, I guess there is little I can do. Mhym (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The coffee shop is related to his work; it appears to have been explicitly founded to support Energy Probe, and shares a phone number and address with the organization. Based on his removal comment, William Connolley's objection to the WSJ article's inclusion was the lack of a cite. Since I tracked one down, I re-added the WSJ cite. Smptq (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: coffee shop. As stated in the article it's completely unclear as to to why it is notable and on the same order as "in 1997 LS moved from one house to another". Whether the coffee shop is truly related or not, the way you just stated your case, it looks like OR and thus inappropriate. Please remove or justify. Mhym (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

http://coffeegeek.com/resources/pressreleases/greenbeanery2004sept15 says: "Green Beanery's profits support the activities of Probe International" http://www.greenbeanery.ca/bean/ says "The staff are environmentalists as well as coffee lovers, part of the team at one of Canada's largest federally registered charities: Energy Probe Research Foundation and its Probe International division" which indicates that they're in fact all the same people. They're pretty open about the Green Beanery being a part of Energy Probe, and about the purpose of the Green Beanery being to support Energy Probe. That the address and phone number are the same a trivial fact to check, and not exactly research. Smptq (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. What I am saying is that either you should include something like "LS runs a coffee shop which supports the Energy Probe" or whatever complying with NOR, or remove the sentence. Otherwise it looks like a loose end - clearly LS is not famous for that coffee shop whose review was published in an obscure news source. Mhym (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done as you suggested. If you think that mentioning that Energy Probe, Probe International, and the coffee shop all share the same phone number and address is inappropriate, feel free to remove it. Smptq (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

M: if you're now agreed that refs from his own website aren't good enough, then good. No sarcasm was intended. Re the coffee shop: its about the only verifiable thing about him. Yes I think its notable; no I think it has very little to do with his writing and doesn't need to have. Re: [4] the point is that its become clear that EP is almost undoubtedly some tiny organisation run out of his coffeeshop pic trying to look bigger than it really is via its website. But I agree we have no reliable evidence for that William M. Connolley (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me put it this way. I do think we have insufficient evidence for the "Carter's Task Force". This "adviser" role is pretty unverifiable. Upon some thinking I would remove this sentence. If LS has real evidence of that he really should put it on his website. I would also remove the WSJ single article title - the way it is just mocking him for no reason. As for the Globe and Mail and other articles he wrote - I would trust LS on this. This is all easily verifiable and LS must be really silly to invent that kind of thing. Mhym (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon just edited the wiki article about himself. He seems to be proud of the WSJ article, though I can't find any evidence that it was widely cited. He might once have been syndicated by Toronto Star Syndication (for which we'll need a reference), but seems unaware that the company has changed names to Torstar Syndication. The current Torstar Syndication list of available columnists does not include Lawrence Solomon. http://www.tsscontent.ca/comics/content__1/print_content —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smptq (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate when this happens. I didn't create this WP article to LS can put here his resume. I will edit this out. I already gone through this with [5]. This "edit your own page" activity never does anyone any good. Mhym (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking for evidence that he was a syndicated columnist for Toronto Star Syndication; so far, all I can find is a single article. [6] Smptq (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a fairly extensive discussion of the of Energy Probe in particular, Lawrence Solomon's views and involvement with the group in Cloak of Green: The Links Between Key Environmental Groups, Government and Big Business starting on page 358. Smptq (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit more of a skim through the book leads me to believe that the author is out to find a corporate-environmentalist conspiracy to install a world government. Facts about Solomon and Energy Probe may be accurate, but we probably need to find some other source to cite for them. Smptq (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's quite possible. It's also a bit amusing that LS is viewed by some MSM as the leader in this quest (more credentials would be useful). Nevertheless, I say we should leave this page as is until further evidence (i.e. without OR) is brought to light. As is stands now, the page appears unbiased and for all we know reflect the facts. Other WP pages seem more important than this one. Mhym (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I cut the syndicated bit, on the grounds that there is no evidence. Perhaps it will appear later. In some doubt, I left the since WSJ article, though it looks a bit silly. Should it be cut? Don't know. I hacked the bit about success from the beanery - its similarly unverified. I left "Canadas largest" because I don't care.

I added dates for some books. One appears to be Earthscan, not Doubleday William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're the second person telling me that the WSJ article cite is a bit funny. After a bit of thought, I'm inclined to cut mention of it. One more thing turned up. He gave an interview to DesmogBlog, and described his motive for writing The Deniers to them: "he has spent most of his adult life as a self-styled environmentalist, campaigning against nuclear energy and against the ravages of big hydro electric projects" [7]. Is this worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smptq (talk • contribs) 01:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Task Force on the Global Environment

From what I can tell, Jimmy Carter did not have a "Task Force on the Global Environment" he had a "Task Force on Global Resources and Environment" [8]

I do not have any cite to indicate who was an adviser to this task force. Smptq (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon edited the article to state that "He was an adviser (1979-80) to President Jimmy Carter's Task Force on Global Resources and the Environment (popularly known as the "Global 2000" report". I tracked down a copy of the report online. Volume 1: http://www.ourtask.org/Pub_files/G2000_Vol_One.pdf Volume 2: http://www.ourtask.org/Pub_files/G2000_Vol_Two.pdf Whatever Lawrence Solomon's contributions might have been to the report, they were insufficient to merit a mention in the long list of names in Volume 2 which begins on page x (11 in pdf numbering). I think that we should defer to the author's of the report, and follow their lead by not mentioning Lawrence Solomon's involvement. Smptq (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Energy Probe vs. Canada

Energy Probe vs. Canada is a lawsuit which seems to get cited occasionally as a precedent in Canadian court cases.

There's a detailed write-up starting on page 23 at http://www.nea.fr/html/law/nlb/NLB-54-EN.pdf

I've got two questions before we can actually write anything: 1) Was the Energy Probe in the lawsuit the same as Lawrence Solomon's Energy Probe Research Foundation? 2) To what extent, if any, was Lawrence Solomon involved?

Smptq (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. As I read the write-up, the judge told them to get stuffed and awarded costs against them. He doesn't quite say the whole thing was frivolous, but its not far off. That doc says there was an appeal... any hint if it occurred? However, there is no evidence that LS was involved in any of this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're willing to trust facts from Cloak of Green (as opposed to the author's interpretations) Lawrence Solomon is married to Patricia Adams, and the two were running Energy Probe at the time. Since the lawsuit was being funded (at least in part) by the City of Toronto, the Toronto Star covered the lawsuit.[9][10] I haven't looked at anything except the free teasers, but there is one which suggests that the city wasn't willing to pay for an appeal. [11] Smptq (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Cloak of Green"

Is a book. It says things about Solomon. [12]. For example, that he was born in 1948 in Bucharest. Does this count as a RS, do you think? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Complicated answer. The author of the book is very clearly pushing a conspiracy theory, which leads me towards regarding her as a fringe source. HOWEVER, she seems to have actually interviewed LS, people who know him, examined documentation, and tried to verify statements. For example, she didn't trust Solomon's statement that he was an adviser to Carter's task force on global resources and the environment, and appears to have fact checked it. (See page 359, which is on Amazon, but not Google) The couple places I've fact-checked her on Solomon-related activities, Cloak of Green has turned out to be accurate. When it comes to verifiable facts about LS, Energy Probe, and Probe International, Cloak of Green appears to be reliable, even if the interpretations of those facts are fringe. Smptq (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the date and place of birth can be trusted. I added these bits. Mhym (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail published an obituary of his Robert Adams (the father of Patricia Adams) which describes Lawrence Solomon as a son-in-law of Robert Adams. I think this confirms the Cloak of Green claim that Patrica Adams and Lawrence Solomon are married. [13]. Since she seems to be a co-author on some works, and appears to be one of those running Energy Probe, she is probably worth a mention of some sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smptq (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WSJ opinion pieces by Solomon's wife

Lawrence Solomon's wife is the author of two Wall Street Journal opinion pieces:

A troubling deposit at World Bank. (the proposed Multilateral Debt Facility)(Column) Patricia Adams. The Wall Street Journal Western Edition Nov 29, 1995 pA14(W) pA14(E) col 3 (17 col in) [14]
Rio agenda: soak the West's taxpayers. (Third World nations at the Earth Summit conference will propose a Green Fund financed by the Western countries to help the underdeveloped countries) (Column) Patricia Adams. The Wall Street Journal Western Edition June 3, 1992 pA14(W) pA14(E) col 3 (28 col in)

From what I can tell, the columns are in her name only, and not in his. I wonder if some sort of informal contribution to these two works is the basis of his claim[15] to have contributed multiple times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smptq (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I say we get rid of the whole issue by substituting WSJ with "several other publications" - he did write a series of articles for something called "The Next City", so that should cover it without negative connotations of one article vs. many. Mhym (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough. Go for it. Smptq (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cited by NIPCC report

He's cited by the NIPCC final report as a reference, apparently without further comment. 21:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs)

Thats not necessarily to his credit :-) But in fact he isn't cited - he is not in the ref list - he is recommended for further reading William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP criticism

Oren0 says that LS criticized WP only on global warming. Not so, even if this criticism is largely unjustified. Here is a quote from his National Review article:

Nor are Wikipedia’s ideological biases limited to global warming. As an environmentalist I find myself with allies and adversaries on both sides of the aisle, Left and Right. But there is no doubt where Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left. Try out Wikipedia’s entries on say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia is the people’s encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives.

I will correct the last edit. Mhym (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets be really clear here: he doesn't explicitly say that the global warming pages on Wikipedia are left-biased, only that they are subject to "ideological bias". Am I parsing too tightly, or, given that this is a BLP, am I reasonable in trying to avoid putting words into his mouth? Smptq (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I say this is splitting hair. He is pretty clear here that WP has leftist bias on everything controversial. On the other hand, in his columns he speaks mostly on global warming, so I think these are worth explaining, but the rest deserve only a brief mentioning at best. In fact, I really don't think his WP coverage has any influence either, in contrast with his environment work. Mhym (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On the whole, his criticism is mostly of bias in global warming pages. He does mention other issues and the leftist slant as a whole as more of a side note. That being said, I think the current version sums things up adequately; does anyone disagree? Oren0 (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the first 2 refs given and found nothing about leftist bias. I also think his main complaint is GW. But there are refs to *5* articles. Thats wrong: 1 or two refs should establish the point. If we want to list his interesting columns, that shouldn't be done via refs. I'd rather someone else selected the 3 to be removed, though William M. Connolley (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Articles can be given by a list, not in the refs. The last two were actually identical! I chose two of the remaining four to represent different issues and publications. Mhym (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did we remove the leftist bias charge (See the quote at the beginning of this talk section)? Whether we phrase it in those terms or not we should at least explain what it is that he's complaining about. Oren0 (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the left-wing bias mention should stay. That's the bulk of his complaint and the reason he wrote the articles in the first place (even though he may not of expressed it in those exact terms until the National Review article. I don't particularly like "Leftist" however, and would recommend left-wing instead, but that's just my preference. Leftist is too pointy even for me! :) --GoRight (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly is not the bulk of the complaint. Of the two refs, [16] is almost entirely about GW. So is [17] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the quote provided in the first post on this talk page topic. It is directly from the first article you reference. In fact, it is the closing (i.e. bottom line) point of that piece. Are you seriously going to try and contend that, even in the other articles, he is somehow not arguing based on the perspective that his complaints are related to the ideological slant (i.e. the left-wing slant) that he perceives as being represented here? Where in any of these articles (the five on wikipedia) is he expressing anything that does not align with this view? His topic of choice is GW for the most part, but his complaint is about the bias he perceives. If that bias is not a Left/Right bias, then what is it? --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the quote provided in the first post on this talk page topic. No. I'm not going to. I'm going to go on the basis of the refs that are provided in the article. As it stands, your That's the bulk of his complaint is blatantly false. If you care to shuffle the refs around to something that you think makes it true, then we can try again William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, LS's article are not worth parsing. In substance, he criticized GW coverage by WP as well as actions of some editors and admins. In passing, he claimed (without even a hint of a proof) that WP is left-biased (note that GW is not a left-right issue no matter what LS says). If we can agree on two short sentences which would acknowledge both of these, we are done. As I understand, his criticism have not received a general attention/support so no reason to elaborate on his views. Mhym (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"note that GW is not a left-right issue no matter what LS says" - Just FYI in case you were unaware of it other notable figures, such as Roger Pielke, Jr. argue otherwise [18]

GW appears to be as much politics as science. Perhaps more. Rajendra Pachauri while acting as Chair of the IPCC was at the same time defending India's right to build coal power plants exempt from any restrictions. Even the politics of one prominent GW person canbe overwhelming. Here's the news item quote:

"How did Pachauri react when his own prime minister, and the government that he represents at the UN, not only down-played man-made global warming but positively asserted that there is no proof for it?"

"He vehemently endorsed his Prime Minister’s National Action Plan. “We are an expanding economy. How can we levy a cap [on CO2 emissions] when millions are living with deprivation?,” he told the Indian press. The National Action Plan should be implemented and the west should “get off the back of India."

It's clearly in India's interest to be exempt (and also to have one of its own as Chair of the IPCC). His objective? To hobble the industrial West while pushing the interests of his own country. If that's not politics, I'm Homer Simpson. Bushcutter (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NOR regarding "The Deniers"

The following text in bold from the lead, I quote: "...summarizing the work of famous scientists who are active skeptics of anthropogenic global warming." is a clear violation of WP:NOR because it does not reflects faithfully the book content. Just one example, Roger Revelle was not a GW skeptic, just had a caution position because of the uncertaintes (circa 1990, when the climate models were much less developed than today). There are also two other scientists profiled in the book already deceased. Just this is enough to edit a more NPOV by someone who actually read the book. I suggest taking a look at the The Deniers article and its Talk page before correcting this NOR violation. Also remember that by WP:Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with a high degree of sensitivity and properly source. The questioned edit does not have a suitable WP:RS. Mariordo (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems eerily familiar from the deniers page. The other obvious problem is the same as there: many of the people aren't famous, some aren't scientists. I've reworded it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It does seem familiar. I removed "and non-scientists" per the discussion had regarding the exact same edit you tried to make on the deniers page. It's OR for you to say non-scientists when that's not what the book says and you don't have a source. Oren0 (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Its OR for you to say "scientists" as well; I switched it to "people". I have no objection to "what Lawrence says are scientists" or some similar. Or indeed if you can find an RS that claims the book is entirely about scientists views. But I hope you accept that the book isn't an RS for opinions about itself William M. Connolley (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly keeping "non-scientists" would have been OR, but to avoid another endless discussion regarding "scientits" or "people" or "what Lawrence says are renowned scientists" (which is OK with me), I suggest a shorter explanation will be much better, the book's link is there for those interested in more detail. For example:

"...The Deniers, presenting contrarian arguments against what he defines as the “alarmist” view of global warming, as presented by Al Gore, the IPCC and the mainstream media."
"...The Deniers, a critic to the what he defines as the "science is settled" and “alarmist” view of global warming." or simply
"...The Deniers, presenting contrarian arguments against the consensus view of global warming."

Or anything shorter and avoiding controversy or OR claims in the wording.--Mariordo (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think these shorter versions are better than the current version (which has one too many "he claims") but what we need to mention that he is presenting people more than arguments; the whole point of his book seems to be "look at all of these people who disagree and here's why" rather than "I disagree and here's why." Oren0 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is OK with me to include people in some shorter version.--Mariordo (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)

Not that this ~~will~~ is likely to change my opinion, but I am curious, what is the definition of scientist that Mr. Connolley is using? --GoRight (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually would like an answer here, perhaps you can change my mind. The book claims these people are scientists, renowned scientists in fact, whose opinions should carry some weight with objective observers. I read the CVs of these people and I can honestly say that I consider them to be legitimate scientists. They have appropriate credentials. They have appropriate scientific papers. They have done research. So on what basis are you arguing that these people don't qualify as being called scientists?

I have yet to see any sources substantiating the claim, but more importantly I haven't even seen a decent argument as to why they are not scientists. All I have seen is a few GW proponents claiming that their opponents aren't legitimate. So, please elucidate the following for us to consider:

Exactly who in the book is not a scientist in your view?
By what mainstream definition of the word "scientist" are you making such a claim?

Are far as I can tell, they clearly meet the definition found here, [19], as well as scientist.

Where are they falling short and why? --GoRight (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the word "scientists". It is pretty generic. We have plenty of words like "professional researchers", "experts", "academics", "scholars", etc. to indicate greater degree of expertize in the subject. Mhym (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the dictionary definition of scientist is quite loose; even if we use publication as the criterion (as at "the list") I'd guess that all of these guys easily qualify. I have a hard time believing that anyone profiled in the book doesn't have scientific publications. But again the point is that whom we do and don't consider a scientist is OR and irrelevant; Solomon's say-so is all that we need in this article. Oren0 (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps his claim should go in as a block quote? --BozMo talk 08:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would you do that? It's implying that you don't believe him, which is OK if you're expressing your own POV. But I think we're trying to avoid a POV here. He's a respected person of note making an educated claim, and we're reporting it. Bushcutter (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Solomon an environmentalist? Answer: we have no opinion

I see there's a difference of opinions as to whether the article should say Solomon is an environmentalist. The NPOV answer is to cite off-Wikipedia sources and let readers decide. For example, "The Skunkville Times has described x as one of Canada's leading environmentalists while the Podunk Tribune says 'x is a threat to all that is holy'. X himself has always described himself as a committed environmentalist." As to whether the Skunkville Times or Podunk Tribune are credible sources, again it's not our decision (assuming they're notable); the readers can decide for themselves.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In principle, yes. But where the source is the authors autobiography, then we need to say "In the Skunkville Times, X described himself as..." if we use the term at all William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good point. A lot of places provide descriptive introductions of people which are written by the person in question. Its very clear that Lawrence Solomon wishes to be known as an environmentalist, but not at all clear that he actually is. He very clearly has a history as an anti-hydroelectric and anti-nuclear activist, so describing him that way might make more sense. Smptq (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we live without the specious edit summaries, do you think [20]? And before you ask, mine was ironic William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to William, I agree. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

* Several considerations before starting another sanitation of terms that ends up in an edit war over trivial things:

The editor who wrote Solomon is an environmentalist provided three references, those making the reversing none, just their opinions, so the edit should be kept until proven otherwise with RS not you OR, personal biases or anti-global warming feeling.
This is an article about a living person, so by Wiki rules we all must have a conservative view in favor of that person, and as the label above the Talk page says, the speedy removal of your OR is granted until RSs are provided saying Solomon is not an environmentalist. The burden of proof is on Raul, WC, et al. So I will rv again to keep the sourced text, I hope, until the discussion is finish.
In his book The Deniers not only the book jacket says he is an environmentalist, on page 3 he explains why. If any of you think that is not truth, then provide proper RS. This time I will not provide book citations, read the book, most of you participated his book article, so I hope you read it. If not, use the Amazon tool to read for free.
As with the good old discussion of what is a scientist, you do not get a diploma that says so, neither for an environmentalist. Quite a different thing is to claim you are an engineer, a lawyer or a medical doctor, etc. By our own Wiki article, an environmentalist is someone who is "concern for the conservation and improvement of the natural environment." By the Merrian-Webster Dictionary definition, is someone who 1) is " an advocate of environmentalism" or 2) is "one concerned about environmental quality especially of the human environment with respect to the control of pollution." So the definition is so broad, that please, provide a RS Solomon is not what he claims.
If you wanna go for the number of references, most of the book reviews of The Deniers call him an environmentalist. So please present evidence, and do not forget, this is a biography of a living person. Mariordo (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The only refs to S being env are his own autobiog, as we've said William M. Connolley (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

* Would you be so kind to address the other issues I raised other than RS before swiftly reversing againg.--Mariordo (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

First, the Financial Post source calls itself his his biography. I don't see where it says that he wrote it, and therefore it stands to reason that it was written by the editors of the Post, not by him. Second, I've cited two other reliable sources stating that he's an environmentalist, including the Washington Times. Third, "environmentalist" is a self-selected title that really doesn't mean much but that one can bestow on oneself. In The Deniers and elsewhere Solomon refers to himself as such. There is no reason at all to remove this title from his description. Oren0 (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As a sidenote, please don't use rollback for edits that are obviously controversial such as this. Oren0 (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It is basically standard practice for those website "biographies" to be provided by the person they're about, with no fact-checking. In any case, since you say that the title "doesn't mean much" it is clearly not notable, and should be removed. Smptq (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And you're basing this "standard practice" on what, exactly? The obviously reliable source says biography, and even if he wrote it the obviously reliable source still published it. Second, the idea that we shouldn't include self-selected titles such as environmentalist is absurd, unless of course you want to delete Category:Environmentalists by nationality and the references to being environmentalists contained in the hundreds of articles therein. Third, Raul has stated that there is "insufficient evidence" that he is an environmentalist. Since obviously we're throwing out the whole "cited to multiple reliable sources" thing as how we determine sufficiency of evidence, I'm curious what would do it for you. At the risk of making things personal, I'm also curious if you believe that there is "sufficient evidence" presented that William Connolley is a software engineer (another fairly self-selected title) as presented in the lead of that article. If so, what standard does that claim meet that the claim of LS being an environmentalist does not? I'm not trying to say that WMC is not a software engineer, I'm just curious how you make that distinction. Oren0 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who (quite loudly) proclaimed that "environmentalist" "means little". The problem is that because of how autobiographical blurbs are produced in these publications, they're inherently unreliable on this kind of topic. They tell us more about how somebody wishes to be seen than what they are. We should be telling people what we can verify about Solomon's activities, and then letting readers decide whether he is or is not an environmentalist, rather than depending on unreliable autobiographical blurbs. Smptq (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If O thinks that it means little, he should stop reverting. If he's changed his mind and now thinks it matters, he should say so. He should also take discussion of William Connolley over to that article, where I can happily ignore it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a wonderful song and dance you lot are singing about sourcing, when anyone passingly familiar with this writer going to notice the collective opposition to calling Solomon an "enviromentalist" just happen to be the same people he has written negatively about, and / or are massive pro-AGW proponents who disagree dramatically with Solomon's views. Some odd co-incidence, I am sure.

To paraphrase Oren without referring to the specified example, standards that are not held to in other articles must be met in this case why William? DAIS,NAID again? Jaimaster (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Coming into this late, it appears to be established here in talk that Solomon is an environmentalist and has been ~~since the early 1980s~~ for his entire career. The arguments against using the Post biography don't seem to make any sense. The article says he's an environmentalist, and it's not self-published. It's an RS. What is the problem here? Meanwhile I have a stack of more evidence proving the matter (some of it primary source material) that Solomon has sent me after I asked him about this. I'm going to add back in environmentalist. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Add to this, the guy wrote a book in 1978 called "The conserver solution" ~~in 1978~~. Have a look at it here. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to start this up again, then you will need secondary sources - the post isn't such. As said above, blurbs&autobio's are typically written by the author himself - which makes it SPS. Frankly i have rather little doubt that such secondary sources exist - but find at least one before changing it again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's one, [21]. Is this acceptable "enough" to build a bridge between Solomon and Environmentalist? --GoRight (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a better one, [22]:

"A former adviser to President Carter's global environment task force and one of Canada's leading environmentalists is disputing the claim that there is a scientific consensus about the human origins of global warming.

Lawrence Solomon writes in the Financial Post that a majority of astrophysicists and other solar scientists may in fact disagree with the conventional wisdom. He points out that almost 18,000 scientists signed a petition in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol."

He's one of Canada's leading environmentalists, and a former adviser to President Carter's global environment task force. It seems we were looking for a secondary source for that latter bit a while back. Note that this is NOT an opinion piece but a legitimate news story with one of Fox's anchors, Brit Hume. --GoRight (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Would that be the same Fox News that calls Sylvia Browne psychic?Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Meh, don't know, don't care. It's a WP:RS for this purpose. --GoRight (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one, [23]:

"When heralded Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon first set out ..."

in that one he's a "heralded" environmentalist. I'll leave it to Alex to follow-up on the changes to the article unless people want to quibble over this for some reason. --GoRight (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No - none of those are good. They are all op-ed's or similar - articles that express opinion (topmost use would be "according to X, Y is a Z". Try finding some regular journalistic secondary sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Fox News one is not an editorial. --GoRight (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me the argument that the biography that was published by the newspaper where he works was a SPS? KDP seems to have just said that despite the fact that it is clearly written about Solomon in the third person, and presented as a bio written by another author, KDP argues it is "probably" still written by Solomon himself, and is therefore a SPS. Is that a valid piece of Wiki-reasoning? To me it is idle, baseless speculation. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Such a blurb is generally written from (or by) the subject of the blurb itself. It is written in the 3rd person because that is what such blurbs are written in. And because it is generally written by the subject itself it is an SPS (take note of the fact that Timothy Ball for years used a incorrect bio ~~in the same newspaper~~). So i'm removing it again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim, (1) you are presenting your opinion here in talk as fact again. (2) this reasoning is flawed (i.e. a failure in one case (Ball's bio) hardly implies failure in all cases (i.e. all newspaper bios are now secretly autobios...)). (3) but get right to the real issue, you have ignored that GoRight just presented the fox news reliable secondary source, containing this line: "A former adviser to President Carter's global environment task force and one of Canada's leading environmentalists (Solomon) is disputing the claim that there is a scientific consensus about the human origins of global warming." Now the evidence that Solomon's entire career has been devoted to environmentalism (in fact, very obvious from just the titles of all his works, but easily confirmed by the most casual googling), is overwhelming. Please allow the article to reflect reality. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please also observe that the Fox News piece establishes another fact, that he was adviser to President Carter's global environment task force. Carter was a Democrat, Al Gore's party. This of course also needs to be added to the bio, but please let's stop arguing that white is black. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)No, i haven't ignored the Fox news item - take a quick look at it please - its a collection of headlines/items, quite probably from a news-wire almost certainly presented without any checks. Thus no RS.

If you are in doubt as to whether blurbs are reliable sources - then please take it to RS/N. If "casual googling" shows that he is an environmentalist - then present the reliable sources to that effect, instead of relying on sources that are substandard and most certainly not reliable for BLP material. As for Carter's taskforce what was it that he advised about? And if it was on environmental items - then it shouldn't be hard to back up the environmentalist claim - should it?

Sorry, but you are trying to circle around the fact that you haven't found such a references yet. And without it..... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a bit of research on his earliest work, The conserver ~~society~~solution. Look at http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=9220 this] page and see the very respected Canadian philosopher, Marshall McCluan, has said this: "In making the quantum-leap from consumer- to conserver-society, Mr. Solomon is telling us to switch our stress from the left to the right hemisphere of the brain – from quantity to quality, from concern with products to the environment itself as the irreplaceable product." Alex Harvey (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And that is also not a reliable source! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that were the tables turned and Solomon was a Global Warming Warrior rather than an Evil Denialist (and not to mention Enemy of Wikipedia!) we wouldn't be requiring a cite for anything as trivially self-evident as the proposition Lawrence Solomon is an Environmentalist in the first place. You can not write a book advocating for a Conserver Society concept, not to mention seven other environmentalist works, advise President Carter's global environment task force, and not be an Environmentalist at the end of it. This little excursion is a bit like trying to prove that James Hansen is a Scientist by strict appeal to "reliable secondary source" material. (And of course there is not a single cite given in James Hansen's lede as you would expect.) For the moment I am playing the game, and following up the references at RS/N as you suggested; we will certainly get Solomon's biography fixed up sooner or later. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course we would require a reference no matter what. If Hansen being a scientist were to be a controversial item, then most certainly it would have to be sourced (which wouldn't be a problem, i count 5-6 reliable sources for the first google page of "James Hansen scientist").

You are still dodging the basics here (this time by seriously assuming bad faith - please stop): You need a reliable source, that isn't opinion. (op-ed, editorial, column, letters to editors, SPS, ...). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone else asks, Solomon is an environmentalist. The end. Cla68 (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Except of course the little overlooked thing in all of those sources... Every one of those references are opinions. And thus not reliable sources for other than the authors opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, despite the discussions both at RS/N and here, KDP has overruled us all and reverted 'environmentalist' a second time. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim, out of interest, you've conceded at RS/N your opinion that Solomon "is or was" an environmentalist, presumably because, like everyone else, it has just become overwhelmingly clear to you by sheer force of all these "unreliable" (which must be read as un-WP:RS of course) sources that you're otherwise not allowing. Now you've also said that Hansen doesn't need any cites for him being a "scientist" (or indeed anything in Hansen's lede) because there is no "controversy" there. Now without appeal to your POV or William Connolley's POV (and a number of other friends of the same Wikipedians) can you explain to me what "controvery" remains with respect to Solomon & environmentalist? The only controversy that exists has been created here, inside Wikipedia, by Wikipedians. You now agree that S in an environmentalist, so what exactly is it you're trying to defend here? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words, since the only controversy about S & environmentalism exists here in Wikipedia (as far as I can see it doesn't exist in any sources) why don't we just end it now, you can take a stand for common sense, and allow his obvious environmentalism to stand without a cite as with Hansen and nearly every other BLP? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Try looking back at all the edit-wars, and all the talk-page discussions about this - and the controversy becomes quite apparent. And i will ask again that you refrain from incivility and assumptions of bad faith, Please. The rules on controversial issues, is that it must be reliably sourced. And it still isn't. Use your research capabilities to find such reliable sources, instead of arguing around the issue. (as a side-note: No, it is not "overwhelmingly clear" from the "sheer force" of the sources shown here, sorry. I just seem to recall that there was some reliable source that i've seen somewhere in the past (and i have been looking for it)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why argue over an ill-defined "label"? What does it mean to say someone is an environmentalist? Green, light or dark? Rather include works of his that clearly indicate his "environmentalist views" or whatever. He's not an "environmentalist" just because some journalist says so somewhere. One becomes an environmentalist by ones actions - not by being labeled such. If our readers cannot decide after reading his article here, what his views and stance are, then we need to work on the body of the article instead of arguing over rather useless (i.e. ill-defined and dubious) labels. Vsmith (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"He's not an "environmentalist" just because some journalist says so somewhere." Sorry, that's incorrect. We use what is said in reliable sources. Cla68 (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And we have yet to find such a reliable source. All we have are opinion articles, the only one that comes close is the American Spectator review - and reviews are famously the opinion of the reviewer... So try again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Beg pardon, that is correct. We might say "Journalist X states that ..." but that doesn't make him one. And for us to say he is an environmentalist just based on journalistic say so (opinion) would be quite wrong. Describe his works and background, based on reliable sources -- and avoid the essentially meaningless labels. Our readers can decide based on his works and history. Vsmith (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what is 'essentially meaningless' is merely what we want to say is 'essentially meaningless'. Many editors at this page want "environmentalist" to be 'essentially meaningless'. Evidently, over at James Hansen's page, the designation "scientist" is far from meaningless. Unsurprisingly, the designation 'environmentalist' turns out to be far from 'essentially meaningless' in the case of other environmentalists. E.g. David Suzuki. Now here is a list of many famous environmentalists. Most of these people are designated as "environmentalist" in their Wikipedia biography pages. So how is this not a double-standard? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose what this proves is that the POV of the editor, or especially, the shared POVs of a majority of editors, is essentially an irreducible quantity. I am yet to find after going through all these famous environmentalists that even one of them even needs a cite in order to establish their enviro credentials. The reason being that (a) they're more famous and (b) they're well-liked by the Wiki editors. This is very unfortunate because it's my view that consistency is the higher principle here & the populariser of the conserver society concept in Canada should qualify as environmentalist without the need for a cite. I don't however know how to argue this case against editors with different POVs. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made spot-checks on them - and there is an important qualification amongst all of them.....: It isn't problematic to find reliable sources that state that they are environmentalists. Sorry - but in this particular case (Solomon), it seems that such a reliable source cannot be found. Thus there is a clear and distinct difference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Education/Credentials

Is there any information on where he received his education or credentials? Wingsabre (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Solomon replies to emails - you can just ask him directly if you care. Mhym (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing works

I have added three works, see here for the source... Notice all nicely consistent with the view that Solomon's entire career has been devoted to environmentalism. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

POV issues

I list a number of issues here that seem to be POV edits that would need to be addressed in turn:

"... where he draws attention to a number of scientists whom he considers to have advanced arguments..." - whom he considers implies that the editor's opinion is that he is wrong in some cases, which would be WP:OR.
"...is perhaps best known..." - weasel words, see WP:WEASEL.
"...what he defines as the “alarmist” view..." - this implies he is isolated, even that he coined the term 'alarmism'. Wrong on both counts, appears to be leading the reader to the editor's preferred personal view.
Finally, weighting and presentation of the sections seems to hide the fact that his entire career has been devoted to fighting Canadian environmental causes. But that's already mentioned above. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The first one is rather simple, there are scientists amongst those he "considers" that have stated quite clearly that Solomon is wrong. Therefore we need the association that it is Solomon's opinion.

The second one is because "alarmism" is per his definition, since there isn't a general definition of "global warming alarmism" (its a buzz-word).

If his "entire career" has been devoted to "fighting canadian env. causes" then you should be able to reference reliably that this is the case - to state that someone is "hiding" something that isn't sourced, is a significant assumption of bad faith, and a rather large misunderstanding about what WP is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Solomon is a environmentalist: source=Wikipedia!

I've amused myself considerably over the last few hours after discovering Wikipedia's very own 'category' page on, wait for it, Canadian Environmentalists.

This provides a list of 82 Canadian Environmentalists, created in 2004, well before Solomon dared to publicly criticise either climate change or Wikipedians, includes our very own Mr. Solomon. It appears to me that Solomon has been a part of that list since it was first created by GrantNeufeld at 08:51, 17 December 2004. I have no doubt that he'll disappear from this list within minutes, now that I've called attention to it here, but the point I've made will remain. I am not sure what those arguing that 'environmentalist' is a meaningless designation are going to do now. A whole lot of Wikipedia will need to be deleted if this is to come true.

Next, I went through all 82 of these Canadian environmentalists and have found that not a single one has a cite given in their lede to establish that they are or were an environmentalist. And this search is restricted, of course, just to Canadian environmentalists. I started going through British environmentalists and found exactly the same result, although I have to stop somewhere. Note, in I think two cases, where our environmentalist had actually received an award for his/her activities, I found a cite given about the award. Finally, in the vast majority of cases there are no references given in the ledes for anything at all -- and this is true for nearly all Wikipedia biographies, whatever their ~~source~~ subject.

It is for this reason that Solomon, identified as a Canadian environmentalist by the author of this category, well before he was famous for either criticising climate change or drawing the world's attention to Kim Dabelstein Petersen's and William M. Connolley's Wikipedia activities publicly, that Solomon should be restored as an environmentalist, and there should be no cite given. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, most articles have no cites at all in the lede, so that's a bogus argument. It used to be consensus that, the lede being just a s summary, citations in the main body are both necessary and sufficient. This has been somewhat fluid over the last two or so years, with some editors now requesting cites at least for controverisal or surprising facts even in the lede. This particular article does not even have a lead section, so the issue is moot. Whatever is controversial has to be reliably sourced. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, can you point me to one single instance of anything even vaguely controversial about the claim that Solomon in an Environmentalist that isn't found on William's blog or otherwise outside of this community of Wikipedia editors? This is the very point: as with a number of issues I am tracking, we have what is a Wikipedia-manufactured controversy. You don't believe me? Have a look at this: 'this page here establishes that the environmentalist David Suzuki worked on the board of Solomon's Energy Probe from 1988-1990, shortly before he set up his own foundation (indeed, someone probably ought to add this to Suzuki's page). Alex Harvey (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made no comment on Solomon's status as an environmentalist, as I have no opinion either on whether he is one or on whether he is reasonable widely regarded as one. I've commented on the argument. What does Suzuki have to do with that? It's an equally nonsensical argument. Suzuki also was a director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association - does that make Marsha Hanen an environmentalist? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Where common sense rules, it's generally impossible to prove even the simplest things we all agree on. If I am in a room with a hundred people, ask me to prove it and I can't. Generally, all others will agree, but if someone disagrees, then what can you do? We have a case of something walking like a duck, quacking like a duck, and probably being a duck. The difference of course is that Canadian Civil Liberties Society (whatever that is) is probably not claiming to be an environmentalist group, whereas Energy Probe is. We have (a) Suzuki is an environmentalist; (b) Energy Probe is claiming to be an enviro group; (c) Suzuki was a part of said enviro group. You now want to hold open, actually, it may still be a fraud group, as Connolley says it is? What does that mean, Suzuki's in on the scam too? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And I note that you ignored the question, show me the controversy that exists outside Wikipedia. You've got to see that Wikipedians are a group of mostly-anonymous, mostly-unqualified hobbyists. We just cannot afford to pretend that a controversy in the Wiki-talk pages is the same thing as a real controversy amongst real people. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, policy requires a reliable source for this. You are once again skipping and jumping over the fact that you still haven't found a reliable source to state so. Try to focus on the current issue, instead of harping on about how your fellow editors are "mostly unqualified hobbyists" (and please once again see WP:NPA as well as WP:CIVIL - you are not doing yourself favors here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

We have provided a plethora of reliable sources. The fact that you obstinately declare them to not be reliable does not change that fact. --GoRight (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ups...you do know that by saying "we", you are now part of a cabal?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. :) I believe that my history has imbued me with a sort of "cabal immunity". No matter what I say the official "cabal position" almost uniformly polarizes to become the opposite. Given this it is hard to support the claim that I am a member ... not that I care either way, of course. --GoRight (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A plethora of sources that are all opinion articles. That doesn't suddenly elevate it to RS state. As said below, all that gets us is: According to some commentators S is an environmentalist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

@Kim, on NPA & CIVIL above, can you please try to get over it? You're a big boy. Whilst flattery is admittedly not my thing there is nothing I have said that was personal or in any way uncivil. I have stated an objective and moreover a relevant fact (which still, no one will respond to) that a controversy in Wikipedia is not the same as a real controversy in the real world. We have a group of editors in this article that is probably, what, at most 20 people? And of these 20 people, who are they? None of us are trained journalists or historians. So you can't just casually assume, as Stephan suggested we should, that because there is a controversy here in the talk page that there is a real controversy in the issue. And worse still, and far more seriously, we are potentially using this biography of a living person to create a controversy that would not have existed without Wikipedia's help. That is serious. Don't you think? Especially since, it could be argued that both you & Connolley have a conflict of interest here, in that Solomon has written against you both in print, and you may therefore be a personal enemy of the subject.
@Kim, the most puzzling thing is that you completely ignore the fact that not one person at the RS/N has defended your specific view that the Fox News article wasn't RS. The only reason finally given for not using the Fox News article was, bizarrely, and contradictory to your own reasoning, was that the writing was ambiguous and failed to directly connect Solomon as the environmentalist, by strict interpretation of the logic of language. Bizarre, because it couldn't have been referring to anyone else, and to me seemed to be of normal journalistic style. Otherwise, the source would have been RS, it was implied. True, a few people appeared saying "Fox News is never a RS" but those people were told to please respect a pre-existing consensus that it is. So in fact, not one person came forward to defend your own reasoning that the source was otherwise unreliable because it was a newswire or whatever it was that you said. This is all rather odd, given that it was your idea that I take it to RS/N. It's rather odd that you don't seem to be acknowledging that there is now a wide consensus against the reasoning you have used to revert GoRight's edit, or that you are completely isolated on the point. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
@Kim and others, who have said "Solomon is not Energy Probe." Wrong: Solomon is the Executive Director and founder of Energy Probe. Tony Adams therefore works for Solomon and Solomon would be accountable for Adams' view. Thanks.
William, no, "self-styled" is not appropriate at all, because Littlemore followed that remark with a disclaimer that (I paraphrase) "actually I must admit that I do remember some very good environmentalist work that Solomon did on the Three Gorges Dam project". Better source coming right up... Alex Harvey (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you still haven't found a reliable source to state it. It doesn't matter how many times you reinterate (or how long your post is) that it isn't needed, when WP rules/policy clearly demands it. Find a reliable source please - that isn't opinion or self-published. (or about something else). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Collection of sources establishing Solomon as an Environmentalist

Richard Littlemore, journalist at DeSmogBlog: "...Solomon...has spent most of his adult life as a self-styled environmentalist, campaigning against nuclear energy and against the ravages of big hydro electric projects. Once he brought it up, I started to remember the incredibly good work that his organization, Energy Probe, did in the 1990s on the Three Gorges dam in China."
See WP:SPS - not a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Toronto Star: "...Lawrence Solomon of the anti-nuclear Energy Probe..."
So he is anti-nuclear, put that in instead. Anti-nuclear != Enviromentalist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

academic article (Rowlands, 2006, "The development of Renewable Electricity Policy in Ontario: Progress and Prospects"): "Solomon has argued that the way Hydro responded to these capital limits demonstrated just how great was its commitment to the nuclear option. Solomon pointed out that the board had decided in 1977 to build seventeen hydraulic stations, which had cost advantages over nuclear, yet they were cancelled in order to preserve the nuclear construction program."
Where does it say that he is an environmentalist? As far as i can see it is Anti-nuclear and Anti-hydro plants. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, 1999: "...Ms Kristen Ostling, National Coordinator, Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout: The Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, which has been in existence since 1989, is a national network of environment and safe energy groups. Our steering committee includes many national environmental groups such as the Sierra Club of Canada, Energy Probe, and the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. There are, as well, a number of regional organizations such as the Concerned Citizens of Manitoba, the Inter-Church Uranium Committee based in Saskatchewan, and the Action Group on Nuclear Issues in New Brunswick."
And once more Anti-nuclear. This may establish that Energy probe is an enviromental group ... What about Solomon. Solomon != Energy Probe. (btw. this is opinion again) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Transforming power: the politics of electricity planning By Aynsley John Kellow: See Solomon's 1984 book, Power at what cost? cited.
Nothing on Solomon being an environmentalist. He wrote a book is all that can be inferred here (but we knew that). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[Premier of Ontario citing Energy Probe]: "Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the rules were established after consultation with many people in the marketplace and others. The rules were established to protect the consumers of Ontario. Even Tom Adams, the executive director of Energy Probe, agrees. Initially, he thought the rules that Alberta had in place for full disclosure were appropriate, and now he realizes that was a mistake and he fully confirms the approach that Ontario is taking to protect the consumers of the province."
About Tom Adams - not Solomon. And nothing about Adams being an environmentalist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Energy Probe study commissioned by Canadian Government on water management: "Conclusion: Experience with different forms of privatization in the United States, England and Wales, and Canada demonstrates that privatization – regardless of the form – is the cheapest and most effective way to solve a wide variety of problems plaguing water and wastewater utilities. Privatization has brought investment in infrastructure. It has made available greater expertise. It has encouraged innovation. It has promoted efficiency, in part by facilitating reductions in unnecessarily large workforces. It has reduced the conflicts-of-interest that prevent governments from enforcing laws and regulations. As a result of all of these factors, it has improved performance and brought greater compliance with health and environmental standards." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Well I don't know who, do you? (talk • contribs)

And? What is this? Does it say anything about Solomon at all? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Would it be OK if we called him a "self-styled env"? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
At this point, no, at least not IMHO. His status has been verified by numerous independent sources by KDP himself in this very thread. Even if we were to accept KDP's obstinate claims that the majority of them are opinion pieces taken as a whole even THOSE would constitute sufficient evidence that it is not merely one person's opinion. --GoRight (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The opinion of several non-RS's (for this purpose) does not suddenly become reality. We are still missing the sticking one... A reliable source that isn't self-published or opinion. And if i may point out, there is a strange thing about all the opinion articles that have been found... They strangely are all from a particular category of commentators. (the only outlier, is the SPS that calls him "self-styled"). All you can conclude/say from that is: According to some commentators he is an environmentalist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against it. I'd also buy the "anti-nuclear" title, which we can find RS's for. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Prot?

Seems to be prot now, hurrah. Can I suggest that edit-warring whilst using edit summaries like Can we please stop arguing about this stupid point? is deeply unhelpful. If you think the point is so stupid, stop edit-warring about it. We have no RS for him being env. We have sources for him being anti-nuke. I think we have sources for him being self-styled env, but oddly enough the pro-env folk don't seem to like that William M. Connolley (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

blogger George Marshall of climatedenial.org: Soloman is 'environmental campaigner' and 'heads well regarded environmental organisation'

here:

"...I must admit that Lawrence Solomon is awfully good at this stuff. Like all the best climate skeptics, he is a great communicator. His prose is tight and readable. He is ironic and amusing. His own credentials are impressive: whereas skeptic Bjorn Lomborg used to boast that he was once a Greenpeace activist (when in fact he was simply a member of the organisation), Solomon heads a well-regarded environmental organisation.
"(Solomon) is fastidious about the people he cites, or so it appears. There are no dodgy hired guns here: pukka, medal-wearing scientific stars the lot of them."
"For an environmental campaigner, (Solomon) has fallen into the worst crowd imaginable."
Finally he goes on in the last paragraphy to speculate why a genuine environmentalist would write a book like The Deniers. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And ... Yet another unreliable source. Could you please limit yourself to stating when you have a reliable one that isn't opinion or SPS? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

...not to mention that the quotes are classical cherry-picking, and that the author does not call him an environmentalist. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, don't understand 'quotes are classical cherry-picking' since the only thing we care about at the moment is whether or not S is an environmentalist. (Sure, the remainder of the article says a lot of very politically correct stuff about how bad and wrong Solomon is.) That said, Marshall's language is fine with me, if your point is that environmental campaigner & head of a well regarded environmental organisation is better.

Kim, no thanks; I intend to present more and more and more and more and more evidence here until finally the truth is allowed to appear in this biography of a living person. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many blogs and editorials you dig up; we don't follow Comrade Stalin's view that "quantity has a quality all its own." We need better sources such as straight news reporting instead of editorial commentary. (For the record, given his views on urban sprawl and so forth I think it's plausible that such sources exist. But what I think doesn't matter.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why?

I'm somewhat stumped by this debate. As written above, I've got no strong opinion on whether Solomon is an environmentalist, or poses as one, or is widely regarded one. I suspect this depends as much on a particular definition of "environmentalist" than on anything else. So far I've not seen compelling evidence that he is widely regarded as an environmentalist by reliable sources, or that that aspect is even notable, so per WP:BLP and WP:PROVEIT I have my doubts about including it. What I don't understand is why some people are so eager to pigeon-hole him in that way. Even if is/were true and verifiable, is it important? It's not a badge of honor, or an earned degree. We already list his connection to Energy Probe (used as evidence of this status above). What additional effect is achieved by labelling him? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This should settle the matter

Stephan, there's nothing much to be puzzled about; you may just need to look into the matter here. It's very hard when you're not a full-time researcher, but here is a quote from an actual encyclopaedia. This is a WP:RS Reliable Source, it doesn't get much better than this:

Lumley, E. 2001: Who's Who in Canada, Volume 3, University of Toronto Press: Toronto, p. 1212. "SOLOMON, Lawrence; writer, environmentalist b. Bucharest, Romania 20 Feb 1948. ... CO-FOUNDER, AUTHOR AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, ENERGY PROBE RESEARCH FOUNDATION 1977- ; developed a model for electricity system restructurings that has become dominant throughout the world; Columnist ... Advisor, Pres. Task Force on Global Resources & Environ (Global 2000 Report under Pres. Carter) ... Advisor & Reviewer: Science Council of Canada; Donner Fellow 1991; Vice Chair, City of Toronto Planning Board 1979-1981; recipient, Merit Award for Art Direction, The Advertising & Design Club of Canada 1998; National Magazine Award for editorial writing."

Notice

To all interested parties, I have opened the following discussion at WP:AN: [27] --GoRight (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible, non-confrontational attempt to defuse the dispute William M. Connolley (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Why is there a comma after author?
Are there any sources that dispute his being an environmentalist? He describes himself that way, has written on the topic including the book The Conserver Solution (Doubleday), and apparently seved on "President Jimmy Carter's Task Force on the Global Environment (the Global 2000 Report) in the late 1970's, he has since been at the forefront of movements to reform foreign aid, stop nuclear power expansion and toll roads. Mr. Solomon is a founder and managing director of Energy Probe Research Foundation and the executive director of its Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute divisions." Are there any sources that dispute his being an environmentalist or is the issue that some people don't agree with his positions?
The whole "is perhaps best known" part is not helpful. I suggest saying the he is the author of XYZ and XYZ. If there is something worthwhile to say about one of his books or its impact or controversy then say it rather than weaseling around it.
Putting alarmist in quotes when it is preced with "what he defines as the" is ridiculous.
Why is Grean Beanery in quotes?
The word subsequently is extraneous.
Coverage of his other books and work should probably be expanded.

ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sources that dispute his being an environmentalist? - this is a strange question. Why not ask Are there any sources that dispute his being a self-styled environmentalist?, or any of a number of different phrases we could use William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What criteria is used to determine whether someone is an environmentalist? It seem to me that his views on environmentalism are controversial, but I don't see how that stops him from being an environmentalist any more than a scientist who's views are controversial stops being a scientist. A "bad" or professor with controversial opinions is still a professor. We had this same issue over Ayn Rand being a philosopher. If his positions are disputed in reliable sources then that should be reflected in the article, but given his body of work and the sources referring to him as an environmentalist (including his biography) it seems a bit much to question it without anything to go on besides the opinion of Wikipedia editors. Alternatively I think it would be okay to just avoid the word altogether and to note that he advocates and writes about environmental issues. Is the paper he writes for conservative? I'm not familiar with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Omitting the word entirely would be my preference, as is seen by my edits. What makes you think that he advocates env issues rather than anti-env issues? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

His biography and the title of his book the "conserver solution" seem to suggest that he advocates alternative (ie. not mainstream) propositions to addressing environmental concerns. Is there evidence that he is interested in or supports damaging the environment? Or is it just a case of some (many?) people not agreeing with views? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Of the subset X (of the population) that are opposed to environmentalism (disprove of env groups for instance, ie. anti-env), how large is the subset Y (in X) that supports "damaging the environment" (my guess is close to 0). In other words your question is flawed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone who is critical of the activities of environmental organizations can still be an environmentalist. Have you considered that he may think their approaches are doing more harm than good? In reviewing some of Solomon's work I find that he's written on sprawl and energy issues. He has suggested alternative solutions and criticisms of some of the conventional approaches and government actions. Are you suggesting that only people who support conventional methods and the status quo can be included in a field or referred to as environmentalists? WMC suggests Solomon advocates anti "env" issues. Yet when I ask for evidence you say my question is flawed. There is overwhelming evidence that Solomon has written and advocated for alternative solutions to environmental and energy concerns. Clearly he is someone who seeks reform and changes in protocol (whether he's right or wrong is another issue), but we're not here to advance certain opinions or to take sides, only to fairly represent the subject matter based on coverage in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You are reading too much into my comment. I do not necessarily disagree - all that is asked for on this issue is reliable sources that describe Solomon as an environmentalist - the main reason that i'm sceptical (despite suspecting that he is), is the red flag that i automatically raise when someone claims to be one of canada's leading environmentalists, and then when you look for references, there is a suspecious lack of these... (outside Op-Ed's, SPS's and other opinion articles). Try addressing that please, this is getting tedious. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to his biography at the National Post, and the opinion pieces posted in well established papers like the Boston Globe and Washington Times, he's also referred to as an environmentalist in Publisher's Weekly here "Vigilante said he will start with conservative-themed books, and his first two titles will be The Deniers by environmentalist Lawrence Solomon (Feb.) and Moment of Truth in Iraq by reporter Michael Yon (Mar.)."[28]". Unfortunately many of the articles discussing Solomon aren't available online and papers that make some of their archives available like the New York Times seem to have ignored him, as they often do with Conservative writers. I've also made an alternative proposal that avoids the word environmentalist all together below. See what you think. It seems more than fair to me to say he's written on environmental issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in what their (the sources) political opinions are. All that is asked for is a reliable source that isn't opinion. The bio is (like most such blurbs) probably written by S himself - and book reviews are notorious for ... being the opinion of the reviewer. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a book review, it's an article on a new publishing company. Generally, someone who opposes power sources they think are destructive and advocates for solutions to environmental problems is considered an environmentalist. If you have an alternative definition I would be interested to know what it is. Again, I've proposed an alternative solution below to avoid using the word environmentalist all together since some editors seem to believe that people have to agree with mainstream popular opinion and prescribe to certain viewpoints in order to qualify. We have several sources including the author himself and his body of work indicating he is an environmentalist. If that's not good enough then let's find an alternative remedy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the mention on that link (perhaps its different from viewer to viewer?). As for your "opposes power sources they think are destructive" - that doesn't seem to be the case here. I have read up a bit on this - and Solomons major argument seems to be that nuclear and hydro are un-economic - not that they are destructive. (which is entirely correct for nuclear, since all external costs have been internalized - on hydro i have no idea). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So why do you ignore his tollroads proposal? That is a clear proposal designed to just conserve energy (=conservationism). Alex Harvey (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not ignore anything - but toll roads doesn't seem to be S's major issues, those seem to be nuclear/hydro and making free-market approaches on sprawls etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Environmentalist

What about expanding the first sentence (what I would call the lead) to "Lawrence Solomon (born 1948 in Bucharest, Romania) is a Canadian author and columnist whose work has focused on environmental issues and energy.

The next sentences could be something along the lines of: He is a columnist for the National Post[1][2] and has authored several books. He advocates XYZ and has said that XYZ (and then we describe what his positions are?) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably better to omit "on env issues". He is primarily energy William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well he's certainly written on global warming, sprawl, and solutions to energy issues, so I can't see how it would be appropriate to omit or exclude notation of his work and advocacy on environmental issues. That his work has been disputed seems clear, so I think that aspect should be represented. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the proposal is ok. It says that his work has focused on environmental issues (which is objectively the case) while avoiding value judgments as to whether he is an "environmentalist." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree to the compromise, although I think that if someone's work "has focused on environmental issues", that makes them an environmentalist, which is apparently why he had been labeled one by journalists in reliable sources. Cla68 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like a good compromise SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 01:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now raised the Financial Post biography at RS/N and despite William's attempt to influence the proceedings himself after my polite request to let uninvolved editors discuss the matter, we still obtained a majority of 4 1/2 to 1/2 (not counting Connolley's vote...or my own) that the source is definitely WP:RS. The person who came forward with a half-vote in my opinion didn't actually answer the question, and ended up saying that the FP bio would have been fact-checked, but is probably not "balanced". The balance issue is irrelevant to the current discussion; what is relevant is that it would have been fact-checked. Finally, not one person came forward to unambiguously support the Connolley/Petersen story that it is not WP:RS or that it is WP:SPS. I am not prepared to just accept this abuse of process; there is an overwhelming consensus here and at RS/N that Solomon is an environmentalist, that the same is reliably sourced, that there is no evidence against the proposition, and his biography should reflect this basic truth. Moreover, using normal historical reasoning, the overwhelming number of people calling Solomon an environmentalist against their own bias (e.g. Marshall, always the strongest historical argument for something likely to be true) is incontrovertible. We should be working to improve the article, not hours upon hours of our lives arguing over what is proven. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why you expect to get to do your own one-sided presentation at WP:RS, and then attack other people for pointing out the obvious. Regardless, I don't think this is going to get settled until the ANI thread has gone away William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This was my presentation at RS/N; I'll allow others to judge whether it was one-sided or not:

I am interested in the opinion of uninvolved editors (please) who consider themselves to be experienced and knowledgeable on what constitutes an WP:RS. Specifically, it has been argued that the this newspaper "blurb" / biography is actually a WP:SPS and therefore not WP:RS. The biography is presented in the third person at the newspaper where the subject is a journalist. I would argue that all that matters is that the newspaper was happy to publish it, authorship is attributed formally to the newspaper, and nowhere to Solomon; it is therefore a WP:RS. Other editors have argued, on the contrary, that these sorts of biographies are "typically" written by the subject, and are therefore WP:SPS. I would like to use the biography to establish the fact that Solomon is an environmentalist (all those given above by Michael were also rejected for various reasons...). Many thanks in advance.

Alex Harvey (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Solomon doesn't seem to be most notable as an environmentalist anyway. I think moving forward with the proposed compromise, which seems to have pretty broad support, is the best way forward. Is there any other content in dispute or can we request unprotection? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I like CoM's suggestion. I think that the Financial Post bio is a WP:RS, unless (?) it was written by Solomon (in which case we would have to say "considers himself bla"), but there is no sign that it was so I will assume that it is fine. The other two pieces used as current refs in the article IMO do not meet the criteria to go beyond X says Y. I would not be against calling him an environmentalist, but I'm concerned about clarity towards readers unfamiliar with him, as the traditional present-day environmentalist would be concerned about global warming. So calling him an environmentalist is fine, but I support CoM's suggestion more because "environmentalist" seems to be the wrong present-day pigeonhole descriptor. Awickert (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that CoM's suggestion is a good compromise. I don't want to be misunderstood on that point; CoM is genuinely trying to help here & I appreciate that. What deeply upsets me (and I know for a fact that it hurts Solomon himself) is that we have to compromise on this point in the first place; compromise on the truth. In Canada, Solomon has been for the last three decades most notable as an environmentalist. Internationally, now, he may be notable as a global warming skeptic. What would it say in Britannica about him? All said, again, I support CoM's motion and thank him sincerely for mediating here. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, consensus at RS noticeboard is that "environmentalist" is an appropriate label, so a compromise shouldn't be necessary. Perhaps we should wait a day or so in case the consensus there changes, then ask Raul to unblock the article so that the change can be added. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no such consensus at RS/N that use of the label "environmentalist" is appropriate. There may be consensus that the National Post is a reliable source in this instance, but the two are not synonymous. -Atmoz (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You're correct on this, the consensus was that the Financial Post biography (a few of us have been referring to it as National Post in error, I think, possibly me too) was a RS/N and that it could further be used to support the designation "environmentalist", but not necessarily that we should call Solomon an "environmentalist" (there have been some other reasonable proposals that I'll support). Some came forward and added that they couldn't believe anyone would be disputing that Solomon was an environmentalist, but that view didn't achieve consensus as such as it wasn't the point of the discussion. I've seen your comments at Lindzen's talk page; would you like to weigh in here with your own view: should the article state, clearly, simply, "Solomon is a writer, environmentalist" and then reference the FP bio? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, this is what you said at the Lindzen talk page: "I think the objections to calling Solomon an environmentalist are absurd." So if you think the objections against calling Solomon an environmentalist are "absurd" -- which is of course my own view -- does it not follow that you believe we should allow actually update Solomon's biography to call him an environmentalist, and to give the FP bio as the source? Sorry to put you on the spot like this but try to think about how Solomon himself feels. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this page is on my watchlist, since I don't particularly care about it... but anyway... does it not follow that you believe we should allow actually update Solomon's biography to call him an environmentalist[?] Yes. and to give the FP bio as the source? No. try to think about how Solomon himself feels. I don't care what Solomon feels, and neither should anyone else who is interested in writing a NPOV encyclopedia. -Atmoz (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, with all due respect what you've said is explicitly contradicted by the WP:BLP.

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially ..."

Now you can't apply a high degree of sensitivity without caring about the subject's feelings. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I edit the article any more?

Does anyone know why I no longer have the option of editing the article? Have I been administratively barred? If so, who did this? Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is currently full protected by Raul654. See the page history. --GoRight (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, very interesting. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, you can check your block history (if any) by going to Special:Log/block and typing in your userpage (so, in this case, User:Alexh19740110) in the Title field. Alternatively, you can use the {{User11}} template with your username (so, here, you need to type {{User11|Alexh19740110}}), and click on the block log link. For an article's protection history (which, again, might be empty), you need to go to Special:Log/protect, with the page in question (here, Lawrence Solomon) typed into the Title field. Hope that helps! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

More evidence, Conserver Society entry Canadian Encyclopaedia

It would seem that the Canadian Encyclopaedia entry entitled Conserver Society here draws heavily on Solomon's Conserver Solution, as it is the only reference linked as further readings. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My view

Now, I must preface this with that I rarely agree with WMC. I also don't agree with reverting of banned users simply because they are banned or anything else (as I feel it dodges away from content policy issues). However, I believe that verifiability and reliable sources would side with -not- calling him an environmentalist. The term, as used on Wikipedia, contains two dimensions - the first is of an activist in environmental issues and the second is a scientist active in environmental issues. Normally, the first group is labeled "environmental activist", so environmentalist would imply a scientist or someone with a scientific background. This cannot be determined by newspapers or the rest, as anyone can be described as a "scientist" in a newspaper. It must have verifiable credentials in the field, as the connotation would be that there is such. Thus, WP:V and WP:RS would require that this individual is not described as an environmentalist unless there are some sources on his status as a scientist (I haven't seen or found any to that effect). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This is why I considered ChildofMidnight's proposal "Lawrence Solomon (born 1948 in Bucharest, Romania) is a Canadian author and columnist whose work has focused on environmental issues and energy" to be an acceptable compromise as it avoids the term 'environmentalist'. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 16:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If the word "environmental issues" is problematic, it may be from its vagueness. Obviously, he worked on global warming related issues. It could be broken down into more specific topics. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is a bit vague. But I think we'll have a hard time finding a consensus about the wording. (If it is up to me, we don't need to mention it at all.) SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 18:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"so environmentalist would imply a scientist or someone with a scientific background" - Sorry but that is total BS. The word implies no such background. Here are some objective sources:

[29], [30], [31], [32]

--GoRight (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hell, even the Wikipedia definition makes no such claim of academic credentials or even of a scientific background:

"An environmentalist is a person who may advocate the sustainable management of resources and stewardship of the natural environment through changes in public policy or individual behavior. In various ways (for example, grassroots activism and protests), environmentalists and environmental organizations seek to give the natural world a stronger voice in human affairs."

Your claim is baseless even on Wikipedia. Indeed, it stresses the political side of things, not a scientific one. --GoRight (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

GoRight, please reread the first paragraph. I started off saying there were -two- kinds of environmentalists. Since the kind that you linked to definitions for can easily be called environmental -activists-, with their own term, then it would be best to preserve this term for the scientists or those who take a scientific approach. On your first link, there is an add for "Environmental Testing". Such testers are commonly called environmentalists from where I am from. They are more than just geologists or biologists. It is a mixed fixed of environmental science. Furthermore, your last link doesn't verify what you want it to say. You did forget dictionary.com, which starts off saying "an expert on environmental problems." A scientist is an expert and would be the only real expert. I hope you ignored this last link simply because you didn't know better and not because it didn't suit your point. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, please read a dictionary. I have provided many such references for your use. You do not get to redefine the English language to suit your needs. There is no such convention as you claim on Wikipedia or it surely would have been reflected in the Wikipedia definition of the word. It simply is not. Ergo, this claim of scientific background being implied by the word "environmentalist" is a figment of your own imagination and nothing more.

"then it would be best to preserve this term for the scientists or those who take a scientific approach" - Why, there is no need to reserve anything. The existing definitions of the words are perfectly sufficient for our purposes. More importantly, there is no such already existing convention as you implied above, at least not that you have demonstrated.

"Furthermore, your last link doesn't verify what you want it to say." - It most certainly does, it make no assertions or implications of scientific background.

"which starts off saying "an expert on environmental problems"" - Expert does NOT equate to scientist. There are experts in Constitutional Law, they are not scientists. There are experts in theatrical production, they are not scientists. Your claim is completely baseless on its face. Please see [33], [34], [35], and most importantly expert. None of these imply scientific backgrounds, and even if they did it would be completely moot because this is obviously a minority definition given the sources already reviewed.

"I hope you ignored this last link ..." - I didn't ignore anything. I just didn't visit that site.

--GoRight (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"please read a dictionary" I read dictionary.com and quoted the definition that verified my view. It was number one. "no assertions or implications of scientific background" - then read the last link, as it would not apply to this subject in any manner that you would have wanted it to apply to him: "a person who accepts the theory that environment is of overriding importance in determining individual characteristics" That is definitely not the case. "a person working to solve environmental problems, as air and water pollution, the exhaustion of natural resources, and uncontrolled population growth" Also not the case, as this is not "activism" but "solving", which implies trying to make technology or produce actions that reduce this instead of merely promoting environmental issues. "Expert does NOT equate to scientist." I think we would have to disagree, because any expert in a scientific discipline would, by definition, have to be a scientist. Sorry, but I laid out my justification above and I cannot see this person being described as anything more than an "activist" or a "journalist". Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"I didn't ignore anything. I just didn't visit that site." By the way, "ignoring" would be "not visiting". >.< Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"By the way, "ignoring" would be "not visiting"" - No, this is clearly incorrect. Ignoring implies I was aware of the Dictionary.com definition and consciously chose not to include it here. Not visiting it implies that I was not aware of it. Your WP:ABF accusation that I intentionally "ignored" it aside, I tend to prefer Meriam-Webster over Dictionary.com so I usually start with them then pick a few others. Dictionary.com didn't make the random hit list. In the end, though, it is also clear that the Dictionary.com definition is outside the mainstream of such definitions as evidenced by the other entries we have reviewed. Oh, and it still doesn't imply any scientific background as you claim. You are clearly incorrect on that point. --GoRight (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"I was aware of the Dictionary.com definition " Or, it could have simply meant that you were aware of Dictionary.com and didn't bother to look, hence, you ignored dictionary.com. Is it bad faith to ignore something? No. So, your accusations are over the top. Many people ignore dictionary.com when looking up definitions. You also ignored the Oxford English Dictionary. I would have mentioned it but not everyone has online access to the full thing so there is no use referring to something that you might not have access to. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And I think I have already proven a strong argument as to how an expert in a scientific field is a scientist. Other people can decide if they agree with me. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't proven anything. And, BTW, environmentalism is not, generally speaking, a scientific discipline. Your claim that scientific credentials are required to be an expert in environmentalism can be dispatched with a single counter example. I am quite certain that there are experts in Environmental law, for example. I am also quite certain that no scientific background is required for them to practice their trade. There is also no requirement that someone who is properly called an environmentalist be an expert at all. There are plenty of everyday ordinary people who are environmentalists, in fact I probably have several living just down the street.

"Is it bad faith to ignore something? No." - Completely wrong question. Is it bad faith to accuse someone of ignoring something? Yes.

"You also ignored the Oxford English Dictionary." - Your use of the word ignore is flawed. I am not "refusing to take notice of" anything. I have responded to your Dictionary.com reference. Bring on the Oxford one and I shall do the same. The fact that I haven't provided an exhaustive list of every possible dictionary reference known to man does NOT imply that I am "refusing to take notice of" the ones I left off. That's simply absurd. --GoRight (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I would have gone to get the Oxford definition as well, except I don't see the need to pay for the privilege. [36]. --GoRight (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't list it. "Ignoring" is not an accusation of any kind of impropriety. This isn't a competition or a game. I put up a definition. You said there was no basis. I showed at least one example. And if you haven't heard of a class called "Environmental Science", then I don't know what to tell you. Normally, it is a combination of geology and meteorology. It is also called "Earth Science". Ottava Rima (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"And if you haven't heard of a class called "Environmental Science", then I don't know what to tell you." - Sure, but are you actually going to assert that "Environmental Science" is the only discipline under "Environmentalism"? That would be absurd. You are the one claiming that scientific credentials are REQUIRED (look it up in the Oxford) to be considered an expert in environmentalism. I dispute that claim and have already presented a perfectly applicable discipline, Environmental law, which clearly HAS experts and yet does NOT require scientific credentials.

Are all environmental scientists also experts in environmentalism? Debatable but for this discussion let's assume yes. Are all experts in environmentalism also environmental scientists? Clearly not. Ergo scientific credentials are NOT required to be an expert in environmentalism as you claimed.

Earlier I claimed "expert does NOT equate to scientist" and you replied "I think we would have to disagree, because any expert in a scientific discipline would, by definition, have to be a scientist". Is a lawyer specializing in Environmental law a scientist? Clearly not. Are they an expert? Clearly so. Ergo the term "expert" does not equate to "scientist" as I claimed earlier. In other words, there exist environmental experts who are not scientists so the set of environmental experts is not equivalent to (i.e. it does not equate to) the set of environmental scientists. This should be plainly obvious. --GoRight (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - " but are you actually going to assert that "Environmental Science" is the only discipline under "Environmentalism"?" Um, I stated above that Environmental Science includes biology, ecology, meterology, geology, etc. Sigh. Do you even read what I write? And I would not say a lawyer in environmental law is an expert in environmental science. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And with this I believe my point has been made. Moving on. --GoRight (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This argument is in that dull middle ground where it's neither substantive enough to be taken seriously nor silly enough to be amusing. Be ye either cold or hot. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Middle grounds tend to be the best and the safest. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You must do what I say because I'm all powerful

You've all forgotten, e.g., this [37]. Now do what I say or call Solomon a liar William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, William invokes here the liar paradox. But did he say you were all powerful? :) Alex Harvey (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Misc problems

Cleary, we've decided that the FP "bio" (read: autobio) isn't a reliable source, because we aren't including "is one of Canada's leading environmentalists". So it is not at all clear that it should be used as a source for anything else. So:

if indeed Solomon was an advisor to President Jimmy Carter's Task Force on the Global Environment (the Global 2000 Report) in the late it *must* have left some trace in the world other than his autobio. Someone who wants that line to stay should find such a trace.
Solomon opposes nuclear power based on its economic costs - clearly he opposes nukes; but "based on economic costs" appears to be speculation. The source given, the FP bio, doesn't say so. Is it in [38]? I can't see it. Or [39]?
and has been critical of government approaches and policies used to address environmental concerns - ditto.

William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Being a source for whether he is an environmentalist is one thing. Being a source for his opinions is another. I think the National Post bio certainly passes that bar.

Agreed, it is a RS for his opinions. I was thinking of facts, like the Carter TF William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

2)The Nuclear Power issue was discussed above as I recall. Feel free to add a citation needed tag if you think it needs to be better sourced or dispute it.

Done so, but you've fixed it. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but now you've broken it again; Solomon opposes nuclear power based on its economic costs,[1][2][3][4] - if any one of these is reliable, it will do. If it needs 4, then none are reliable and all should go William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

3)I think this is fairly well established in his writing on sprawl, global warming, on nuclear power, etc. Are you disputing that he is critical of established mainstream approaches on these issues?

It may well be establsihed by his writings. I haven't read them, so wouldn't know. I'm asking for a cite :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

4)If the word alarmist is put in quotes, that already indicates it's something he said so the additional wording isn't needed. I noted that above and I don't think anyone commented or objected. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of words above. I haven't read them all William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that I've only recently had an opportunity to do any work on the article. The things you're questioning are in the opening paragraphs, where basic information is contained, so hopefully as the body of the article is expanded with content and citations these cites won't be needed or can be moved there. I would appreciate a more collaborative approach. You seem to be challenging things more to be difficult and to make a point than to be helpful or to improve the article. I find it hard to believe that you are really disputing whether Solomon opposes Nuclear power based on its costs or that he is critical of government responses to environmental concerns. Do you think he supports Nuclear power? Do you think he opposes it for a different reason? If so what? Do you think he supports the current approaches to environmental concerns? I'm surprised you haven't requested a cite for his being Canadian. I'm trying to write an article that's accurate and encyclopedic. What is it exactly that you are trying to do? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be challenging things more to be difficult and to make a point than to be helpful or to improve the article. I find it hard to believe that you are really disputing whether Solomon opposes Nuclear power based on its costs or that he is critical of government responses to environmental concerns. - you seem to be taking offence needlessly. It would also be helpful if you read what I wrote. I'm asking for cites to these things, not doubting them. You understantd the difference now I've pointed it out? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you're right that I'm being oversensitive. But I'm trying to clarify and improve the opening paragraphs and then to work up the article's body. So I will certainly try to cite anything you have questions about. I didn't think there was any dispute that Solomon opposes nuclear power as being excessively costly. I agree that it should be better covered and cited in the body. I think the opening paragraphs should be a more general description of this individual's notability. And if there is anything there that's inaccurate or misleading we should fix it. The article certainly needs a lot of work, expansion, and clarifications. What, for example, does it mean that Solomon supports "reforms in foreign aid"? I don't know. So let's find out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

On 4 - since it is in the context of other people (ie. Solomon is writing about these) then it has to be made clear that it is Solomon who defines "alarmism" - not the people he writes about. (the reason for the quotes is that there is no clear definition of the word. ie. what S defines as alarmism is not necessarily what others would). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes

Okay, well, I implemented what I think is the clear consensus as far as the opening sentence. I left in that his Financial Post/ National Post biography and some columnists describe him as being an environmentalist. I used the word conservative, but maybe that's not accurate or helpful? They seemed to be in more conservative publications as far as I can remember.

I also made some other changes that I think improve the article. I If anyone has dates on where and when he's worked at various publications that would be good to add to the career section. Right now it's pretty thin.

I'm not averse to retitling or reorganizing the sections, this was just a first try. A description of his books would also be good to add. I believe there are reviews for his book on sprawl, for example, and the Conserver book is pretty notable I think.

If I made any changes that are objectionable, feel free to tweak or change those back, I'm not perfect, but I would prefer it if people tried to impove on my work instead of undoing it. Hopefully we can avoid edit warring going forward and work collaboratively to resolve any disputes as they arise. I tried to add some indication of Solomon's political positions and I think this would be good to expand (with content and sources). If there are notable criticisms of his work, I think that would also be a good addition. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Environmentalist

The claim that Solomon is an environmentalist (rather than a writer with an interest in environmental issues) is clearly controversial. Per WP:BLP controversial material should only be included where supported by good quality independent sources. This had no source. Please provide a reliable independent source for the statement. Polemical sources should, of course, be avoided. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, we've done that to death above I think. Meanwhile, Solomon is described as an environmentalist in his biography and by conservative columnists.[3][5][6] is true, but begs the question: what do his opponents call him? It seems rather one-sided to give only one view. Apparently they call him an "industry shill" says the article. Should that go into the lead? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this question-begging sentence. Since we've all agreed he has written about environmental issues that'll do for me. The industry shill thing should go, the source of that is an op-ed. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Task Force on the Global Environment (2)

A web search shows that the only references to the Task Force on the Global Environment appear in Solomon's bios.[40] There are a few possibilities: (a) the organization is misidentified and in fact had a different name; (b) this was the organization's name but Solomon was its only member; or (c) this was the organization's name but it was so utterly trivial that nobody else has seen fit to mention it. (Possibility (d) has been left unstated in deference to WP:BLP.) Of these I suspect that (a) is by far the most likely. Does anyone know what this Task Force was really called? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

See above - the closest people have gotten is the "Task Force on Global Resources and the Environment" (or the Global2000) - but there is no mention of Solomon as an advisor in the report. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. Apologies; I'm not much of a regular here so hadn't noticed. Anyway I commented out the material pending identification of the correct name for the organization. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Green Beanery

This was labelled as Solomon's "business interest" which rather suggested something other than a not-for-profit environmental charity that the Beanery apparently is. Green Beanery Website: about us. I see no evidence presented that conflicts with the Beanery's own mission statement, so I've changed it. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider them to be a disinterested RS? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't, but where is the conflicting evidence? William, please have a look at this: Conservation and environmentalism: an encyclopedia, By Professor Robert Paehlke, pp. 117 here. Please read this, about Canada's Energy Probe. Note the author is a Dr. David Brooks. Who is he? Here is Dr. Brooks' CV. David Brooks is an environmentalist. This is in an encyclopaedia of environmentalism and conservation. And in this encyclopaedia of environmentalism & conservation Energy Probe is shown to be an ENGO (environmental non-governmental organisation). Green Beanery is one of its fund-raising charity vehicles also dedicated to green & fair trade. You finally have to accept that this person is an environmentalist who is skeptical of global warming. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

insert Okay, I see my wording here was definitely confusing. I didn't mean to suggest that the Brooks article mentioned the Green Beanery... Apologies to anyone who misunderstood the point I was making here. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, where did you veer off into me *must* accept him as an enviro? We were talking about sources for the beanery. Your answer "there are no conflicting sources" is obviously inadequate. Your qute Energy Probe is shown to be... looks promising but I can't see where you source it form. Can you be specific? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We only have SPS for the beanery, we both know that. According to the sources we have, the beanery is a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to Fair Trade, green coffee, and environmental policy research (i.e. Probe International). It is wrong, therefore, to have a heading stating, as you did, "business interests" as this would imply the opposite of a not-for-profit organisation. My "quote" in fact was not a quote; it was my interpretation of the article linked above entitled 'Energy Probe', by the environmentalist Dr. David Brooks, in Paehlke's Conservation and environmentalism: An encyclopaedia. In that article, you can read about how Energy Probe is funded. That information, combined with what is found at the beanery website, provides a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that the beanery is an honest charity. It took me about 25 minutes to write this. Next on my list of things to do is to find evidence for Global 2000 thing. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just interjecting, Alex, you should be aware that that "Dr." doesn't impress anyone around here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me second Dr. Boris. --Dr. Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Moi aussi. Meanwhile, if your quote isn't a quote, I can't see what text you are interpreting to say it. Could you quote here the text you are paraphrasing in that way? Though this is beginning to sound suspiciously like OR to me Dr William M. Connolley (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

William, actually I am going to instead assume that you have already in good faith followed the link above. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, followed the link, as I say I can't find it. Now please provide the text as asked William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What confuses me about your link is that it says nothing about Energy Probe being a non-profit organization, which it would have to be for your line of thought to be correct. From your link it looks like the Beanery is a money machine for Energy Probe - not a charity. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - can you please display your doctorate before contributing, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Chopped promotional hype and commercial sales link. Methinks WP:UNDUE covers this. ...and no -- never piled it higher and deeper. Vsmith (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

William, I'd like to make it clear that I regard your sarcasm about my lack of a "doctorate" as insulting and petty. I had referred to Barry Brooks' doctorate out of nothing than innocent respsect to a CV far more impressive than my own. Meanwhile, the beanery website states: "The Green Beanery, a non-profit company that aims to help small coffee farmers in the Third World, has become Canada's newest merchant in specialty green coffee beans." The text that Kim D. Petersen was able to find states that Energy Probe is a ENGO that is 50% funded by donations. It is therefore probable that if the beanery website states it is a non-profit organisation then it is. Your description of the beanery in Solomon's biography as his "business interest" or Vsmith's version "Retail business" are both pejorative & deliberately srepresenting the probable reality that Solomon is in it for the money. You may apologise for your arrogance & insulting behaviour if you like. I have escalated the latest violation of BLP policy by Vsmith that you have incited (having the text edited to imply that Solomon's not-for-profit business is in fact a profit business) to the BLP noticeboard. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

insert I should like to apologise for losing my cool here and misinterpreting William's remark as sarcasm about doctorates. He has assured me that he did not mean it that way. To Vsmith, some of your edit was probably fine with me and it was only the change of the subject heading to "retail business" that I objected to as pejorative. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP?? It is a retail business - the previous ref? link was to the website sales page. Just being retail does not say what the profits are used for, if you wish to add an independent WP:RS stating the motives of the business or where the profits go, be my guest. However, hype and sales pitches aren't reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Boris, "Coffee merchandising" is fine with me. However, the Green Beanery section is in need of a reliable source -- or just remove the section. The coffeegeek.com "press release" seems a bit lacking as an RS and is blatantly promotional. Vsmith (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The big question is, exactly what is wrong with the previous section title, viz. "Green Beanery"? It had the superb advantage that it made no insinuations, one way or the other, and simply introduced the section. I didn't put the material in the article in the first instance; it had been there since I started working on it. Should it be there? I'd say given that the Beanery is a prominent landmark in Toronto and that anyone living in that city would know about it, it seems reasonable that it should stay. If you say "business interests" or "business investments" or "coffee merchandising" or "money-machine", in the context of Solomon's biography, the casual reader thinks "Oh, I see Lawrence Solomon is a businessman & entrepreneur." Indeed, until I investigated, that's what I thought after I read the original, slanderous version of this biography. Now it may be a "retail business" in a sense, but then the World Wide Fund for Nature is also a retail business in a sense. But I regard the money I give to WWF as a charitable donation; if I found out later that WWF was in fact a retail business I would feel conned. Calling the section Solomon's "retail business" and challenging me to prove you wrong later is a violation of the BLP policy. Please note, I am not pushing any POV that beanery is a charity and probably "charity" is the wrong word, anyway. I am simply not accepting that it be labelled pejoratively as Solomon's "business interest." Alex Harvey (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Green Beanery" means nothing to the average reader. "Coffee merchandising" doesn't say anything about whether it's profit or nonprofit. The reader will see "coffee merchandising", read the text and find out what's going on. FWIW I'm affiliated with a charity that sells direct-imported coffee to support school building projects in Uganda. We see nothing shameful about telling people that we "sell coffee." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Coffee merchandising" is a neutral heading. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's all a matter of context, Boris. Having dabbled in acting & screenwriting, the subtext is often everything. But in the hope that we can focus on more important things I'll accept the compromise and mark the BLP issue resolved. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

William, I'd like to make it clear that I regard your sarcasm about my lack of a "doctorate" as insulting and petty. - I was talking to Kim, not you. That's why my comment was indented immeadiately following his. Its the standard convention. I had referred to Barry Brooks' doctorate out of nothing than innocent respsect to a CV far more impressive than my own. - that is very generous of you. Perhaps you might extend the same courtesy to people here [Removed PA - GoRight] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Perhaps you might extend the same courtesy to people here ..." - No need since we're all equals here. --Randy in Boise (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary: [Removed PA - GoRight] We're agreed that there are *no* indep sources for the GB; so I think Boris's [41] is fine. Are we all done for this section? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys (talking in general); can we avoid refactoring other's comments and edit warring over it? I know nobody here is the best of friends, but removing someone's comments without their permission generally won't help resolve the argument. If someone's said something that you feel is an attack, ask them to remove it, and/or brush it off and move on. Should they continue, reports can be made as needed to WP:WQA. On the other hand, please avoid making potentially pointed statements, and try to keep to a neutral tone. Try reading through your comments as though someone else was directing them at you; may help, may not. Thanks, guys. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I was just browsing and I now wish I hadn't. This section must be worth a grade one Wikipedia Bulldust Star. Ombudswiki (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia section

Has a third-party source acknowledged Solomon's criticism of Wikipedia's coverage on global warming and other topics? Otherwise it should not be mentioned in the article, per the Verifiability policy and the Reliable sources guideline.--Joshua Issac (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Joshua above. Solomon has written many columns on many things, so why this particular topic is being emphasized here? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Solomon's criticism has been picked up and quoted by another columnist, James Delingpole [42]. I'm not sure that's what we're looking for, really, but it's the only external reference in a newspaper (well, a newspaper blog) that I've seen. --TS 16:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

His criticism has also been picked up now in The American Spectator (Tom Bethell, "Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate," The American Spectator, December 30, 2009). EastTN (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Solomon's articles are reliable sources for Solomon's opinion on Wikipedia. The relevant section from Wikipedia:Reliable sources is:

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion."

The text ("Solomon has also written columns criticizing Wikipedia's coverage of global warming and other topics") seems to do a solid job of attributing the material to the Solomon and making it clear that it's Solomon's opinion. That seems to pretty solidly meet the verifiability rules (given these opinion columns, it would pretty hard for anyone to argue that Solomon hasn't ". . . written columns criticizing Wikipedia's coverage . . ."). EastTN (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the question we need to consider is whether we're singling out Solomon's coverage of Wikipedia simply because we tend to notice his opinions on a subject we're all interested in. This is the essence of self-references to avoid. It's possible for us to react to every mention of Wikipedia by giving those references more attention than they merit simply because of our personal biases. I'm undecided on this particular matter, though. A factor that might help me to make up my mind is whether he has ever criticised Wikipedia in the past, or if he's just singling us out now because of our coverage of recent events related to global warming. --TS 18:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "recent," but the first of his columns referenced in this article dates to April of 2008, which is more than a year ago. We also have a section on his work related to global warming; his criticism of Wikipedia's treatment of global warming is related to his work The Deniers, which is notable and is discussed both in this article and in its own article. Beyond that, we run the risk of making Wikipedia look foolish here. Rightly or wrongly, Solomon has repeatedly charged that Wikipedia's editorial community is suppressing dissenting views on global warming. There would be a certain implicit irony if we were to then suppress any mention of those charges from the article on Solomon himself. If we're concerned that this doesn't provide a wide enough perspective on Solomon's views, a better approach would be to bring in some other issues on which he has written multiple articles over a period of a year or more. EastTN (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

EL to "Climate doctor" article

The external link to [43] is inappropriate for a number of reasons. The article is already used as an inline reference, so it should not be repeated as an external link (reinforced by WP:ELPOINTS#3). Moreover, the article linked contains materially false accusations against another person, bringing it into conflict with WP:BLP and the Wikipedia:EL#What_to_link requirement for factuality repeated in WP:ELNO#2. Also see WP:EL#In_biographies_of_living_people, which stresses the need for compliance with WP:BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. So why didn't you just remove the duplicate link from "External links"? I've done so. The item in question is discussed in context in the article, where the reference contains a http link. --TS 20:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So why didn't you just remove the duplicate link from "External links"? - well, check the history. I did, but was reverted twice. So I decided to discuss the issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The "used as a citation" argument appears to be technically correct, but I would assert that it is rather thin given the manner in which these citations have actually been included. I would argue that the guideline in question assumes that a summary of the content of these references has actually been included in-line in some fashion which is not the case here. The citations are merely used to establish a bare factual statement. So by WP:IAR I would say that unless and until the contents of these citations are actually summarized in-line within the article (as WP:EL clearly assumes) that the use of external links be allowed in this case. --GoRight (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why we need two external links to the same opinion article in a single Wikipedia article? If you're arguing that more context is needed, then add more context. Tagging another copy of the link into the external links section adds no context and doesn't explain why it appears twice.

Obviously you do have a reason for wanting to pay extra attention to this article. If so, you should explain--in line, as you put it, why it merits that extra attention. Paying full attention to all of Wikipedia's policies, of course. --TS 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Could you explain why we need two external links to the same opinion article in a single Wikipedia article?" - What are you talking about. The is only one external link being discussed here. The other is a citation. The two are not duplicates. And as I point out the "used as a citation" argument may be technically true but the spirit of the policy on which you rely assumes that the content of the articles being linked have actually be summarized in some fashion. This is clearly not the case here and so that argument is flawed.

"Paying full attention to all of Wikipedia's policies, of course." - I have been as far as I can see. Do you feel I have ignored something? If so, what? --GoRight (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the legitimate content policy points cogently raised by Stephan Shulz and Tony Sidaway, I believe that your editing here is in violation of your topic ban. From Wikipedia:Editing restrictions,

GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from William Connolley-related pages - this is not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley.

While I wouldn't want to suggest that Lawrence Solomon in his entirety is a William Connolley-related topic, the aspects of his commentary relating to Wikipedia almost certainly fit within the topic ban's parameters. Three of the four columns footnoted in Lawrence Solomon#Wikipedia mention Connolley multiple times, and one of them (the least factual, and the one under discussion here) deals exclusively with Connolley.

I would strongly encourage you to drop this particular topic, GoRight. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What particular edits are you talking about? I didn't find anything recent from GoRight relating to Connolley. ATren (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding permalink to a [44] for quick reference. --GoRight (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "Climate doctor" is a specific reference to William M. Connolley. I agree with TenOfAllTrades' suggestion dated 03:13, 30 December 2009. --TS 21:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Environmentalist (2)

[45] Mr. Connolley, did you notice the new sources that I added to the article? One, independent source calls Mr. Solomon a "leader in the Canadian enviromental movement" and another mentions his advocacy for environmental issues as the director of an environmental organization, and all you can say is, "We've gone over this already?" Please check again what I've added. Cla68 (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revert back to the version before yours. Yes, i did notice the references that you added to the article, and i was rather irritated that not a single one of these had an URL present. Now it took a bit, but since Google is ones friend, i seem to have found them all - and i am not impressed:

Solomon has been a member of American Forests, an environmental conservation organization.
- Is not supported by the reference ([46])
Serving as executive director of the Urban Renaissance Institute, a division of Energy Probe, Solomon has advocated environmental protection, conservation, and safeguards throughout the world community, especially in non-affluent nations.
- Is referenced to this[47] - which is the National Post, and it is a reply written by Solomon himself. [updated Jan 28: this is the full article [48], the quoted text is from the blurb --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)]
The Montana Standard described Solomon as "a leader in the Canadian environmental movement since the 1970s."
- Is referenced to this[49] which is an Op-Ed written by Roberta Stauffer - it is certainly not a reliable source for this claim. (this is the one you chide WMC for btw)
Solomon's blog has been used as a source for an article in U.S. News & World Report on carbon emissions reduction legislation.
- Is referenced to this[50], which is a blog that contains one paragraph linking to a Solomon article. It is certainly not an article.

All in all: Misrepresentation of sources - stating things not in the sources.... If i had been the suspecious kind, i would have suspected that the missing URL's were deliberate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

G-oogle is not our friend, because what it brings up is not necessarily what was originally written. I got those references from Infotrac which posts those articles in their entirety, not abbreviated versions which you found through Google. The American Forest ref states clearly in InfoTrac that Solomons was a member. The American Intelligence Wire is the original of the truncated National Post article that you found. The Montana Standard article is an independent opinion on his role in the Canadian environmentalist movement, you give no reason as to why it isn't a reliable source. Infotrac made no differentiation as to whether the US News article was a blog or not, it gave it as a reliable source, which it must be since it carries the name of the main publication. That's why it pays to pay for access to academic databases, because if you rely on Google, and most scholars would, I believe, agree, you're going to get bitten by it. Now, people are going to have choose which of us two to believe. You, with whatever Google offers, or me, with access to InfoTrac. If you would hop on down to your university library, instead of Googling from the safety and security of wherever you might be sitting at the moment, you might see what I mean. Cla68 (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

One other thing, you wholesale reverted my edits, not just the ones you specifically objected to above, but all of them, including several that you didn't mention here on the talk page. If your reversion was meant to be in good faith, why would you do that? Cla68 (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting again (BLP concerns)

#1 possibly (i will check) #2 sorry but a newswire alone is not adequate sourcing. Can you find someone who actually printed it? (also please quote the context - since it looks like an SPS blurb) [specifically i want to confirm how much of this is LS himself writing it up]. These are the simple ones. Now the really problematic ones:

#3 Is an Opinion article, which is both misattributed (still), and isn't a WP:RS for WP:BLP material. (opinion articles never are)

#4 Is still a serious misatttribution: Not only isn't it an article, but only a blog of exactly one paragraph. You are using it to peacock it into significantly more than it is.

As for wholesale reverting - yes, i do that because this is a BLP article, and ~90% of the content was poorly sourced, and i have serious misgivings about sourcing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Update on #2: This is the entire article[51], which i quite correctly located to the Financial Post, and which is reprinted on Solomons own site. And i correctly surmised that the quoted text was from Solomons usual blurb in the Financial Post, which has been discussed intesively previously and is no better than a WP:SPS. Newswire merely redistributed the commentary. So it is not a WP:RS for this information. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

@Cla: User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats. Also, I think it is rather early to be flinging accusations of bad faith around. I've reverted back to the "pre-Cla" version, since there is clearly dispute about your additions. If you're prepared to talk here rather than engage in an edit war we should be able to sort this out soon enough William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to think that you've read /Archive_1#Environmentalist. Can you confirm that you had, before posting the above? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I wnat Kim to anwer my qusestion. If his edit was in good faith, why did he wholesale rever all of my sources? Please, Mr. Conelleyy, stand aside until I get an answer. Kim, can you speak for yourself? Cla68 (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a BLP article, if 90% of your contribution is misrepresentation of sources and/or poorly sourced (blogs, and other opinion sources) then it must be reverted. I notice that you haven't addressed a single one of the concerns in your reinsertion of the text. Since you are reopening a contentious subject, which has previously had long discussions, you really should be adressing this on talk first. Notice please: The only issue you've addressed adequately above is the AmFor part. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Several appropriate sources were removed. And if self-references can't be used for anything then I trust you'll get to work on the William Connolley article pronto. Won't be much left. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF - why don't you adress that at that particular article? As for this article, which is what this talk-page is about, could you please address the points i've provided above? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks removed. Vsmith (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have protected the article for one week due to edit warring. Please work it out here. I have also started a thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lawrence Solomon to request an outside review of the BLP concerns, as I am not sure that they are sufficient to warrant the risk of potential chilling effects from applying the policy too broadly. If any uninvolved party feels that these concerns should be reversed in this case, please selectively revert through the protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Should be covered by Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am directed here from BLP/N and I'll have to say this particular appeal to the BLP policy is possibly the first time Wikipedia has made me laugh since, well, I can't remember. ;-) Anyhow, I agree with 2/0 that there's no BLP issue here, and I support Cla68 & ChildOfMidnight that the new material belongs in the article, and thank Cla68 for finding much of it. It might also add that it's probably a good time to update the lead to explicitly note that Lawrence Solomon is an environmentalist. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree no substantial BLP grounds but have no opinion on the inclusion. --BozMo talk 10:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Could we get back to the sourcing problems, which it seems that no one is willing to answer? BLP btw. is not only for negative information, but applies just as equally to positive, which also seems to be overlooked here. Negative material should be removed on sight, while positive can be discussed, which is the reason that i haven't commented on BLP/N. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon is one of Canada's leading environmentalists his own website one of Canada's leading environmentalists Financial post THE DENIERS—by a world famous environmentalist Richard Vigilante Books renowned Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon American Spectator. How many do you want btw? --mark nutley (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A reliable one would be nice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is the american speccie not a RS? mark nutley (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The American Spectator piece is probably deemed opinion, but what about Cla68's Infotrac piece? KDP hasn't answered that yet. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Which one of the Infotrac's #1 or #2. #1 doesn't say he is an environmentalist, #2 is simply the normal blurb from Solomons' Financial Post column. (Cla68 didn't follow through on his search, i've updated with a link to Solomons own site with the column). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about #1, "Solomon has been a member of American Forests, an environmental conservation organization." You have removed that from the article and told the community that we have to wait for you to go to your library to check it. Have you been the to the library? How long do we all have to wait here? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Say what? Where did "the community" tell you that? It is quite possible that he has been a member of that organization, but that doesn't make him an "environmentalist" [52], he may just like to read their journal to keep himself up-to-date. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, you have reverted wholesale Cla68's edits, citing the BLP policy, and reverted the above sentence. Cla68 has responded to you above, and shown that you had no good reason to revert his edit. You then admitted, "maybe", and said you would check. Have you checked? Or will you agree that his text should be restored to the article? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, i said "maybe" to one reference, Cla68 could of course speed verify it for us, by taking a screen-shot. The rest of the references are still as bad as before. From what i've seen in the rest of the references, my revert was absolutely correct. If 80% of an edit is bad, then i revert "wholesale". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 does not need to send us a screenshot (although it'd be a good idea if it's possible). If you have concerns about what is actually inside a reference, then you assume it says exactly what Cla68 says it says, or you go off to the library and check it. Either way, it should stay in the article until such time that you come back with some valid reason for why it shouldn't be included. "I don't have access to it" is not a valid reason. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah but that is the problem isn't it. I do have access to it, i've linked it, it doesn't contain what Cla68 says it does - so i assume that it may be in the introduction or blurb of the article. The trouble is that the rest of the references do not contain what Cla68 said they did, so reasonable doubt is a factor here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, do you have access to the full article or don't you? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Random comment: it should be clear that any comment, in any article, which went like "the man was a leader of the environmental movement in the 1970s" would be opinion, regardless of whether the article is titled as an "op-ed" or not. That doesn't mean such information could never be included. The opinion was published and should probably be included, although it could possibly be balanced by other sources which say differently, such as allegations that Solomon was astroturfing, if sources are available. II | (t - c) 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't have access to InfoTrac as I'm currently traveling, but in the meantime I've qualified a few of the statements in a manner which I believe is reasonable. When I return home I will check ProQuest's NewsStand for more information on Solomon, as NewsStand was unavailable (at least, to me) the day I found the information in Infotrac. I still don't understand why Mr. Kim reverted my original addition in its entirety, when he admits that he did not dispute the entirety of what was added. I don't find that behavior to be very helpful or in the spirit of collaboration. More to follow. Cla68 (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

One point of contention here has been whether to label Mr. Solomon as an environmentalist or not. Before getting more involved in this discussion, I decided to ask Mr. Solomon himself about it. I emailed Mr. Solomon today and asked him if he felt that "environmentalist" was an accurate label for him. He replied that he did, in fact, feel that it is an accurate description of him based on his work and advocacy for environmental causes since the 1970s. So, as we proceed on coming to a conclusion on this point we can do so knowing that the article's subject believes himself to be an environmentalist. Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how much weight a subject's self-evaluation should be given. We wouldn't be surprised to find Sarah Palin considers herself well informed and Vladimir Putin considers himself an exponent of democracy. (But Muhammad Ali really is The Greatest.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Boris, the difference here is that Mr. Solomon is an environmentalist, and the same has been established by a number of routes, e.g. by meeting the reliable sourcing criteria, by showing a large number of opinions of other environmentalists who disagree with Solomon still calling him an environmentalist, by establishment of a majority of Wikipedia editors agreeing that Solomon is an environmentalist, by appeals to RS/N, by appeal to Solomon's publicists, and finally by just asking Solomon. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I found one more source of information in NewsStand on Solomon and added it. Again, the source shows that Solomon is actively involved in environmental activism. If no further objections, I'll readd to the article that Solomon is an environmentalist. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, Mr. Solomon has now written an article on our editorial debates about this particular question: Lawrence Solomon (2010-02-13). "Lawrence Solomon: Who am I?". National Post. Retrieved 2010-02-13.

I don't know how this fits in as a potential source, but it's an unusual twist for the subject of an article to be writing about talk page debates over how Wikipedia will be describing the subject in that article. EastTN (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a valid source for disputable claims about himself. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Further, the FP Comment pages at the National Post are blogs, not newspaper columns, editorials, or reports. Mind matrix 18:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Blogs on newspapers are reliable sources, As it is in a newspaper which is a wp:rs then it is not self published either mark nutley (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And i just looked at WP:SELFPUB Which clearly states that this can be used mark nutley (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this can be used as a reliable source for Mr. Solomon's statements/views about himself and Wikipedia. Honestly, though, I mentioned it more because of the novelty of having the subject of an article break the fourth wall and start using a news outlet to write about the editors who are writing about him.EastTN (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I reverted the anon. Obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And your reasons? It was reliably sourced and true was`nt it? mark nutley (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Err no, it was nonsense. Obviously. If you want to write "LS says that..." then that is fine. But so state that it is true, then obviously a blog posting by him is not sufficient William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Err yes, blogs in newspapers are reliable sources. And wp:selfpub also says it`s allowed, perhaps you should look at the conversation above? mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are reliable to the opinion of the author - nothing more. And thus must be attributed as (for instance) "According to X: Y is Z". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP rules apply here. Mr. Solomon names and criticizes a Wikipedia editor by his real name, so I believe that independent reporting by a separate, reliable source would be necessary before adding more detail on Mr. Solomon's allegations. On that note, the editor who Mr. Solomon names probably should be careful to make only noncontroversial edits to this article. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the telegraph has it covered as well Mentions two different editors to kim though —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 2010-02-17T08:36:45

Appears that Fleet Street has taken notice, but that's a newspaper blog entry from this past December. BLP rules still apply. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If I could just point out here, it doesn't make a lot of sense to link every single article and blog post that Mr. Solomon has written against Wikipedia in its very own section. It looks silly. And it looks even sillier to list every single article but say nothing at all about what he actually said in them. I don't think the criticisms of William M. Connolley should be mentioned in this article, according to our BLP policy, but it is probably appropriate to discuss some of the non-editor specific criticisms he's made. Finally, I would probably wind it back to the most famous articles. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(By the way, I agree with WMC's revert here, even if I strongly disagree with WMC himself making the revert.) Alex Harvey (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Coffee merchandising

Based on Solomon's recent post about his own article, it is clear that he was as flabbergasted as I was that the article presently tries to make Solomon sound like a coffee businessman. Can we just delete this embarrassing, completely irrelevant section from the article now? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The only sources for it apparently are the press release and Solomon's column. I would say either expand it by a couple of sentences and add more clarifying detail from Solomon's commentary, or else delete it. As is it doesn't appear to explain well what's really going on with that enterprise. Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we delete anything sourced only to Solomon? That would appear rather radical. I, personally, don't think he is reliable but I would have thought you would differ William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't personalize content discussions, William, it's not very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Solomon just emailed me and asked me to correct the error about the coffee merchandising. He told me that although the idea was his, Energy Probe Research Foundation is the actual founder and owner of the enterprise. I agree with Alex above that since this section is sourced entirely to a press release, that it would be better to remove it. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A personal email to a Wikipedia editor does not satisfy WP:V. I'm not doubting your word here, but to accept such a source sets a very dangerous precedent. 08:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether LS has emailed you or not is irrelevant - you should know that. Nor is there any obvious reason to delete this. I'm baffled as to why this should be either embarassing or irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The source is a press release. So, in BLPs we err on the side of caution. Also, you have a personal conflict with Lawrence Solomon and should not be touching this article. Cla68 (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - but the personal conflict thing is something that you should take up on WP:COIN or WP:ANI - not here.

As for error on the side of caution - what caution is there? Solomon is the director of Green Beanery [53][54] - is there a problem with that? Is it a contentious item that he is also a coffee marchand? Why? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

William Connolley should not be editing this article, for obvious reasons, just as it wouldn't be a good idea for Solomon to edit William Connolley (not that he has tried to). SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

~~Um.~~ Can you prove that? He certainly writes badly unqualified and malicious articles about WMC in less controlled media. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Struck Neanderthal heritage per offer at [55]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you want me to prove, or what "badly unqualified" means, or what purpose the "um" is fulfilling. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You made a claim: "(not that [Solomon] has tried to [edit William Connolley])". Do you have any evidence for that or is it just a claim? "Badly unqualified" is a euphemism I use because of my limited vocabulary for smears like this. "Um" is showing my surprise at your comment. Any other questions? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing your point. The only point I wanted to make is that, regardless of any other issue, WMC should not be editing here. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for clarifying that. May I suggest that if you only want to make one point, and want to avoid confusion, you don't make two or three? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware, I did only make one point, and anyway, Stephan, we're not in kindergarten. Why is it that on the CC articles the same small group of editors is almost always involved in snark or insults of some kind? There are two substantive points in this section: (a) whether an editor with a COI ought to be editing the page, and (b) whether there's a problem with the coffee issue. What's the point of derailing things? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could always stop personalising these things and focus on content. That would be a step in the right direction. Guettarda (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Again that is something for other venues - and we are once more loosing sight of what the issue here is: Solomon is the director and founder of a successful (i believe) Coffee merchandize - why is that contentious? Can anyone give a good reason as to why it shouldn't be mentioned in this biography? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to reinstate the removed content if no one is actually going to answer the content question - i've asked it a couple of times now, with no response. Do please try not to personalize it again --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The rationale I used to remove the section was that it was sourced to a press release which Solomon says is inaccurate. We err on the side of caution with BLPs, which in this case is justified because the source (a press release) is not a solid source. Cla68 (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Curious, where does Solomon state that it is inaccurate? (As an aside, this seems like people on both sides are getting a little too prickly about something that is minor and is complimentary to Solomon.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well, the press release is by Green Beanery, and Solomon is listed as the person responsible. This is a good source per WP:SELFPUB. Of course, if the material is wrong, we should not include it. But we do not have any indication that it is wrong (or inaccurate) except for an unverifiable private email. If LS wants it corrected, the proper way of doing this would be via an OTRS request, or simply by issuing a correction to the press release. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In the broader sense I would have no objection to removing the material. But I think we can agree that relying on an email to an individual Wikipedia editor is contrary to policy and sets a terrible precedent, yes? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When a BLP tells us something is wrong, we act on that unless we have good reason to believe s/he is mistaken. I suggest looking for recent secondary sources that deal with the issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When a BLP tells us sonething is wrong -- aye, there's the rub. Any Wikipedia editor can pop up and say subject X tells them statement Y is wrong. What we need is something verifiable. It could be aa OTRS ticket, or a statement posted to the subject's verifiable web site, or various other things. But an editor's word that he or she received a personal email -- no. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but in the several years I've been editing BLPs I've never known an email from a subject to an editor to be ignored. The people wanting to retain this should find recent, reliable secondary sources for it, because it's not a good idea to rely on primary sources, especially when the subject has indicated they're not quite right. If we find a good secondary source we can then discuss how to handle the material. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never known an email from a subject to an editor to be ignored. WP:V makes no allowance for such. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear about the point of this exchange. We had an insignificant point in the article sourced to a primary source, which is never a good idea in BLPs, per BLP. The subject has said it's not right. We've therefore removed it, and we can look for a secondary source if anyone wants to retain it, per BLP and V and NOR and best practice and common sense. I don't see the point of the back-and-forth. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat again: We have in total 3 sources for this, the one in the article, this and this. All of which states that Lawrence Solomon is rather important to this company. Now what exactly is it (again) that is contentious? And what exactly does Solomon say is wrong in the information?

Being a entrepreneur and director of a successful company is contentious? (and/or not important/insignificant in a biography?) Is there a public company register in Canada where we can double verify the infomation? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem using this, which says he was a director as of 2004, but it may not be correct still. Press releases are not a good idea. Why the resistance to finding a secondary source, per BLP? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Non sequitur. There is no "resistance to finding a secondary source," only a well-justified reluctance to use a purported email to an individual editor as a source. An argument can be made that the original source was inadequate, but personal emails to a wikipedian cannot possibly qualify as reliable sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No one has suggested using the email as a source. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Presumably then the "email" to which Cla68 refers is something other than an email. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is reliable secondary source:

"The Bay Street for baristas". National Post. Feb 19, 2008. Retrieved 2010-06-02. It's a research-heavy organization," says Lawrence Solomon, Green Beanery's founder, "and we will provide the consumer with all the info they need to make conscious decisions when buying coffee.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec):Here are two more sources: "is also a director of GreenBeanery.ca" - bio blurb of one of his articles on coffee, "Green Beanery's founder" - a National Post article reprinted on Canada.com. If it's wrong, it's certainly a widely spread meme. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This 2008 article found by Stephan is a secondary source, and it calls Solomon the founder. Solomon himself says he is a director in this 2004 article. Cla, can you say more about what Solomon's objection was? Is it just that it's out of date? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

He said that he thought that the section gave the impression that he owned the business, which he said is incorrect. He stated that the business is owned by Energy Probe, not him. If reliable secondary sources state that it was founded by him and that he directs it, that appears to be ok. Cla68 (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added the section back in with different wording and a different section title, in an attempt to alleviate Solomon's concerns (which I believe have some merit). ATren (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)