Talk:Murry Salby/Archive 1

Protected edit request on 4 March 2014

Two requests: 1. In the intro section please add:

He has written two textbooks, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics (1996), and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (2011), the latter building on his first book, offers an overview of the processes controlling the atmosphere of Earth, weather, energetics, and climate physics. He has also authored over a hundred referenced articles in scientific journals.

2.

Please replace the current "Education and career" section with the following two sections:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Education and career Salby got his Bachelors in aerospace engineering in 1973, and his PhD in environmental dynamics from Georgia Tech in 1978, including a Sigma Xi: The Scientific Research Society doctoral research award. He began as an assistant professor in University of Colorado Boulder's in 1984, in a department which eventually became the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, became an associate professor in 1985, and professor in 1991, gaining tenure in 1997, before resigning in 2007. During his tenure, according to court documents, he "attracted over $10 million in research funding," with approximately half going to the University as overhead. He has also held positions as a visiting professor and scientist at institutions in the U.S., Sweden, Australia, France, and Israel. He became professor of environmental science at Macquarie University, and worked there from 2008-2013. In May 2011, Salby's research showing that ozone levels over Antarctica had begun to recover since the Montreal Protocol banned the use of ozone-depleting substances, was published in Geophysical Research Letters. Macquarie fired him in 2013, and Salby stated this occurred due to his skepticism of man-made global warming, with similar claims made by reporter Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun. Macquarie University denied these claims in a statement about terminating his employment noting he was not let go for his beliefs but "because he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach," and "breaches of University policies in relation to travel and use of University resources." Positions held 1978-1980. Fellow, Advanced Study Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research. Independent research. 1980-1982. Scientist, Global Observations, Modeling and Optical Techniques Project, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Pure and applied research in conjunction with remotely sensed fields derived from Nimbus-6 LRIR, and Nimbus-7 LIMS. See High Resolution Dynamics Limb Sounder. 1982-1984. Visiting scientist, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Program, Princeton University. Independent research. 1984-1985. Assistant professor, Department of Astrophysical, Planetary, and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Colorado. 1985-1990. Associate professor, Department of Astrophysical, Planetary, and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Colorado. 1986-1999. Director, Center for Atmospheric Theory and Analysis, University of Colorado. 1988-2002. Affiliate scientist, Atmospheric Systems and Analysis. 1987. Visiting professor, Meteorological Institute, University of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden. 1990-1991. Lady Davis visiting professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, Institute of Earth Sciences, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. 1991-2007. Professor, Director Center for Atmospheric Theory and Analysis, Department of Astrophysical, Planetary, and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Colorado. 1997. Visiting senior scientist, Centre Nationale Researches Scientifique/University of Paris, Paris France. 1998. Visiting scientist, Bureau of Meteorology Research Center, Melbourne Australia. 2000. Visiting scientist, Center for Ocean Land and Atmosphere, Washington DC. 2007. Visiting scientist, Bureau of Meteorology Research Center, Melbourne Australia. 2008-2013. Professor of Environmental Science, Chair of Climate Science, Macquarie University.

Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone object to my insertion of this text? It doesn't seem to be touching on the more contentious aspects of his career and it may help show the potential for expansion of this page without turning it into an attack page. -- Atama頭 22:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I included the first part in the lead of the article, but I've decided not to honor the second request, as it would effectively rewrite most of the article. I'm not prepared to do that through full protection while there is a very active discussion below about this very subject. -- Atama頭 20:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I do appreciate you doing part of this uncontroversial edit, however the "effectively rewrite most of the article," is the point. The article focusses too much on the negatively while short-changing the basics of his academic career. If you compare what is being proposed, all that would be effectively changing is including his decades of academic credentials whereas we now gloss over several decades. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for focusing more on his scientific career rather than merely its abrupt and controversial termination, @Sportfan5000:, but I'm not sure where you're getting all the "positions held" stuff as there is no reference cited in your edit request. Also, I couldn't find a source that says the date when he started and stopped working at UC-Boulder, so I would like one to be provided before endorsing this edit request. Jinkinson talk to me 22:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into it. At the time I was just hurrying to address the BLP concerns stated. As it's now been several days, it doesn't seem likely anyone is actually that concerned. I'm in the middle of a few other things but will look into adding sourcing. Update, ok had some technical issues here, so went with links cited below, including some court documents, some of which make great reading. But I've added a few refs including one from Colorado U. that he has been on their payroll since 1984. The dates on his departure differ slightly but i believe he resigned in 2007, although contractually it may be read as 2008. Essentially they dismantled his entire lab without his knowledge, while he was on approved sabbatical, working in Australia, when he returned he was simply unable to recover his life's work, intellectual property, and his current contracts were all compromised, with much of his former papers, research and equipment locked away, the rest loaded into storage boxes and stacked in a small room. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The concern I would have about the 'list of positions held' is that it looks like a straight infodump of headings from a CV; it doesn't put anything into any sort of context, and we don't know which of those entries are actually important or meaningful from a career or scientific standpoint. By themselves, they just look like an attempt to 'puff up' the individual's credentials. (Googling a couple of lines from the list, it looks like it's very nearly a copy-paste job from this rather dubious pamphlet.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a direct and visual rebuttal that his career was lengthy and likely notable on it's own before any scandal became known. As the article evolves it's likely a bullet list just like this would be created as an addendum to try to complement a complex narrative of his many projects, initiatives and positions held. Although this was created directly to counteract a preponderance of negative information on the current page, which everyone claimed was a major problem, I have found nothing to contradict what is on there, with the exception that many of these entities or departments have tweaked their names, which doesn't change the spirit of the entries. I also consider the subject of a BLP to be an expert on themselves. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've marked the edit request as answered, as the page is no longer protected. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Stubbed

I stubbed article per BLP policy on unbalanced/attack page of otherwise notable figure. The material in the article is not what the AfD commenters are finding notable, rather it's completely negative in tone about a single aspect of his career. --DHeyward (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

use of "claim"

May be non-neutral in the case at hand. The "known for claiming" should be "believes" and the other "claims" should be "says" etc. Collect (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have a problem with these kind of "he is known for" comments. There are no sources for what he is "known for." I'd rather say "he has published books and articles on atmospheric physics, and has made controversial claims that..." In terms of the Macquarie University response, the revised statement at http://www.announcements.mq.edu.au/vc/professor_murry_salby_and_his_dismissal_from_macquarie_university is probably a better reference. -- 101.119.14.91 (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• My concern is only what he meets notability for. There are plenty of skeptics and frauds. If the AfD says he is notable for his academic work, that should be the primary weight for his BLP. It's disingenuous to claim he is a notable academic bet focus most of the article on non-academic issues. --DHeyward (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• True, and we don't have much in the way of WP:RS for those non-academic issues. I think they can easily be trimmed, per WP:UNDUE. -- 101.119.15.140 (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

US NSF investigation

He was the subject of a long investigation by the US National Science Foundation, which finished in February 2009, concluded that over a period when Dr Salby was working at the University of Colorado, he had likely fabricated time sheets in relation to research paid for through NSF money.

• National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations, CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM

Salby apparently responds to this and other accusations:

• Overview which states, in part, This is about paperwork and whether bureaucratic procedures have been properly followed, not about his science. This lends credibility to the idea that he is wonkish, but bad at bureaucratic functions. Many researchers fall into this exact characterization. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? The NSF investigation found that the guy created two shell companies – contracting out work to Company 1, which then further subcontracted work to Company 2 – in order to funnel extra grant money to himself; when questioned he was first evasive and then presented fabricated timesheets. That's not a bureaucratic "oops"; the NSF doesn't debar scientists just for giggles.

I agree that a finding of financial dishonesty doesn't necessarily reflect on his peer-reviewed scientific work, but it's not something that should get a free pass in a biography, either. But speaking of his science, it's not clear that he actually has published anything on non-anthropogenic origins of atmospheric CO2. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but my impression is that he was plugging his theories on the think-tank-and-lecture circuit, and that he hasn't authored any substantive peer-reviewed journal publications on this topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I agree he's an alleged douche. If his debauchery were enough to warrant notability, fine. But I find the reasoning of "h-index" (which for some reason I am not competent enough to verify as I am not familiar with those sources) as the basis for inclusion while debauchery is the main topic of his bio, it seems a bit incongruous. If all he is really known for is being an alleged douche, he doesn't deserve an article. I know many alleged douche's worse that don't deserve worldwide attention. Let the whacko's die in obscurity and prison rather than a martyr for a cause that they only profit for themselves. --DHeyward (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've said elsewhere that the problem with this article, as it is written, is that it is primarily a WP:COATRACK to draw attention to one blogosphere-frothed five-minutes-of-fame that followed his recent firing. If someone started from scratch and wrote a proper biographical article, it might be worthwhile; the impression I'm getting is that earlier in his career the guy did a fair bit of useful, constructive, well-cited research and publishing, which may well clear whatever thresholds we're using for 'notability' these days. Unfortunately, cases of a scientist getting tenure, receiving a modicum of professional recognition, and then wandering off into the wilderness of opinion-giving instead of publishing research aren't exactly thin on the ground – off the top of my head, I can name at least four Nobel laureates who've gone that route – and it is in those cases that we have trouble.

The sticky wicket, as usual, is our reluctance to admit that for a respected, productive, but not 'superstar' scientist there are going to be few reliable secondary sources that talk about their careers. If the individuals are uncontroversial, it doesn't hurt us too much; a few local news clippings, scientific society newsletter mentions, and their university bio pages will usually give a just-the-facts presentation that we can work with. For cases like this one, where a relatively minor figure gets involved in various sorts of controversy, we're hamstrung by the paucity of independent coverage. We're left with a handful of primary sources (NSF reports, legal filings, etc.), some blog posts, and tabloid columns from individuals trying to make hay. By the next news cycle, interest has faded, so there's no follow up or fact checking, and the individuals returns to obscurity. We can write an article on the scientific part of the person's career, but we're flailing almost helplessly trying to write a non-waffling NPOV treatment of the controversial bits. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

^^^^ Of this, I agree. --DHeyward (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. This is certainly a notable chapter in his life but it will take care to present it neutrally, including the use of primary sources. I see no rush to include this at all, until it can be worked out. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Quoting User:MastCell, "it should be understood that a 3-year disbarment is typically the maximum penalty imposed by NSF, except in truly extraordinary cases. I cannot see how this is not a notable part of his biography; being described as deceptive and dishonest by the National Science Foundation, and being barred from funding for 3 years, is an extremely unusual sanction in any scientist's career." Not saying I agree or not but I feel the observation has merit. I do recall reding though that most or all of the NSF investigation was done without Salby present, as well as comments that the report contradicted itself several times. I think it will take time and care to present this NPOV. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP strongly discourages use of primary sources -- if the result is notable, it should be reported in a reliable secondary source. Else we do not use it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Of course, an investigative report from the National Science Foundation is a reliable secondary source. In addition, the report has been covered by other reliable secondary sources; for example, The Guardian wrote:

Salby had previously been banned for three years from accessing US taxpayer-funded science research money after the National Science Foundation (NSF) found that Salby's "actions over a period of years displays a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies."

The NSF report found that Salby had funneled himself hundreds of thousands of dollars in government grant money through a for-profit company he created, of which he was the sole employee. To justify his salary payments to the NSF, Salby claimed to be working for this company for an average of 14 hours per day for 98 consecutive days, which aside from being entirely implausible, would also have left him no time to fulfill his university obligations. The NSF concluded that Salby's behavior was likely fraudulent, but by the time the report was completed, Salby had resigned from the University of Colorado and moved to his job at Australia's Macquarie University. [1])

@Collect: I trust that these sources satisfy your BLP concerns; would you like to take a shot at adding this material, or should I? MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@MastCell: The Guardian article is already referenced in the article, though not all that information is in there. I doubt adding accusations of fraud, however well sourced, would make any article more BLP compliant, but what do I know? Jinkinson talk to me 23:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP instructs us not to include unsourced or poorly sourced material. This is well-sourced material. If we cannot include this material, then this article may as well be deleted, because there's no point in pretending we've written a comprehensive, encyclopedic biography. More generally, the approach to sourcing here makes a mockery of this project's policies and goals. Do you seriously believe that Bolt's or Delingpole's partisan blog screeds are useful BLP sources, while a report from the National Science Foundation somehow is not? MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

While the BLP policy is intended to protect the living subjects of our articles (and indirectly, to protect Wikipedia itself) by not including negative information that is poorly-sourced or lacking sources, it's not intended to exclude all negative information. Such a stance would conflict with WP:NPOV. -- Atama頭 23:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

At this point, we should be quite careful to ascribe no criminality to his acts which means we should likely restrict the BLP to "He was restricted from NSF grants for thee years as a result of disregarding rules and policies regarding funds." or thereabouts -- the "long version" may well be UNDUE and we likely should include his response if any. Had criminal acts definitely occurred, then one would expect some legal action which appears to not be the case at hand. I suggest this would be "sufficiently negative" indeed. Collect (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the entire episode should be kept out until there is a consensus as to what wording is NPOV. One of the main issues has to stay focussed on not what is true, but what is reported in reliable sourcing. I haven't made up my mind on anything but can see many points on several sides of the dispute. We may have to dryly report on what happened, and allow the reader to decide what is most relevant. 00:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

History of suing, and losing

An overview is here, not sure what is worth mentioning until the article has been expanded. It does show he was married, and divorced, and has at least one child which should be mentioned. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Lot's of WP:PRIMARY material there; but we'd need secondary sources. -- 101.119.15.140 (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sportfan5000, why on earth should a marriage, divorce, and child be mentioned? This is a scientist's article in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not the story of a scientist's accomplishments, it's an overview of his life. Basic data like when and where he was born, who his parents were, did he have brothers and sisters are a part of the narrative that shaped who he became. likewise his major life decisions to get married and have children, should not be omitted because his profession. A good article will tell a full story of his life. Think about what obituaries report. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think I know a bit about article writing here, and a two- or three-paragraph article on a scientist does not need that kind of BLP trivia. He's not notable, if he is at all, because he got married. If they shaped anything at all reliable sources will say it, but it is to be included only if it matters, for whatever reason and according to reliable sources, to an understanding of the subject. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you may want to read more biographies then, as a person's family is not considered trivia. And every item part of the article does not need to be directly tied to his notability. It should be obvious why he's notable but we don't only talk about that. In any case there are more pressing issues to sort out so let's see what develops. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Curiously enough, Wikipedia BLPs are not here to score points against any subject -- but to give the information pertinent to the subject -- generally centering on why the person is notable. Trivia etc. about a person is not generally what BLPs ought to be about -- though I fear some editors think the fact that rock star vomited on stage is worth mentioning, or that a person used the word "fuck" should be stressed. Most of us do not hold that position. Collect (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I wouldn't equate giving birth to vomiting on a stage, but from the purpose of encyclopedic usefulness it's not that much different. Sportfan, there are a lot of really bad articles on Wikipedia, including a lot of biographies bloated with trivia. I wouldn't use those as examples. And especially in the case of living people, we should tread lightly. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Collect, creating a battleground where none is needed, and implying that you are the standard-bearer of BLP truthiness, is disruptive. Noting someone has a family on a biography is not "scoring points," but it is telling you would would look at that way. In the same vein I'm "scoring points" by trying to add content about his two textbooks and academic positions held. All perfectly innocuous, and precisely what the average reader would expect a good article to cover. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You are arguing that reporting that someone was married, is trivial on a biography, and may be somehow violating BLP? That is a new standard I think will be rejected pretty quickly. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Um -- in what way is following Wikipedia policy making a "battleground" here? You might however take note that /I an bit the only person here with concerns that WP:BLP be scrupulously followed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:Battleground if this is confusing in some way. And you are not the only one working to ensure that BLP is followed, a policy you have been caught misinterpreting just recently to gain the upper hand, and poison other discussions, which … created a battleground atmosphere. You effectively derailed addressing the BLP issues on this article with your ongoing antics at the admin incidents board where you screeded BLP about the NSF content which has zero to do with the edit request. So wow, your scrupulousness has ensured a non-BLP compliant version has been kept up for two days now. Perhaps this is how you collaborate, I'm not sure about those choices, but you're free to operate as you see fit. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

NPOV content that should be Present in the article

While currently in AfD, the article is fairly certain to be kept because the subject's research record shows a clear pass of WP:PROF c1. However, content seems to be the main issue at the moment. I have no problem with including some text on his career issues and such, if those are sourced, written neutrally, and not commanding an undue fraction of the article. In my view, most of the article should report on his scientific accomplishments. Among his books, there is one that stands out particularly because of its impact, "Fundamentals of atmospheric physics", which WorldCat shows is held by >1000 institutions. He has written highly-cited papers on the Madden–Julian oscillation (several papers, including J. Atmos. Sci. 1994, cited >350), Rossby Waves (including J. Atmos. Sci. 1981, cited >150), Kelvin Modes (including J. Atmos. Sci. 1984, cited >150), etc. His total paper count in WoS is >90 and total citations >3000. There is plenty of material here for a short article on his accomplishments. Agricola44 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC).

Proposed NPOV lead:

Murry L. Salby is a climate scientist and was the chair of climate at Macquarie University from 2008 to 2013. He believes that levels of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere are increasing as a result of rising global temperatures, rather than due to human activity.

I suggest this is clear and fairly states his position, albeit one in discord with the IPCC.

Proposed body:

Salby received his PhD from Georgia Tech in 1978.[4] He worked at the University of Colorado Boulder before being hired by Macquarie University. In 2011, He published research indicating that ozone levels over Antarctica were recovering after the use of ozone-depleting substances was banned.[5][6] He says that his firing from Macquarie in 2013 was due to his skepticism about the extent of man-made global warming.[7][8] Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun echoed this position.[9] Macquarie University said the firing was due to Salby not fulfilling his contractual obligations, "including his obligation to teach" and that he did not follow university policies concerning travel and use of university resources.

Which would appear to be more readable, fully accurate for the cites given, and, I trust, fully NPOV. Collect (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The proposed content is very problematic, for reasons that I outlined at User talk:Bbb23#Murry Salby and elsewhere. For convenience, I'll copy the relevant bits here. While many of my remarks were directed at the current lede, the essential problems I identifed remain with Collect's proposed new version of the article.

The article's lede – both sentences of it – are rather problematic from a BLP standpoint. Saying that a scientist with a lengthy career is "known for" something that, as far as I can tell, he has never published a peer-reviewed journal article on raises a red flag. (The statement is supported by two not-very-good sources: a column by James Delingpole, an outspoken climate change denialist; and a column by a right-wing media personality published in an Australian tabloid. Neither source discusses Salby's career in a broader sense; both are grounded in a conspiracy theory over his firing, and both authors have their own personal axes to grind on climate change issues.) Juxtaposing the first sentence of the article (which ends with mention of Salby's firing) and the second sentence (talking about how he is "known for" his particular stance on anthropogenic CO2) creates a very strong but very badly-supported suggestion (an implied synthesis, contravening policy) that Salby's firing and his recent opinions on certain aspects of climate change are a) related; and b) the only significant and important aspects of his career. That sort of suggestion shouldn't remain in a BLP at all, and particularly not as its entire lede.

The bulk of the rest of the article focuses predominantly on the blogosphere-stirred conspiracy theories over his firing. His career prior to moving to Macquarie University in 2008 is missed (save for two books from a three-item bullet list of publications), eliding three decades of work at UC Boulder. As I noted in one of my comments on the article's AfD, this problem comes as no surprise; the article started out as a vehicle to relate the conspiracy theories about Salby's firing, and it is very difficult to fix such WP:COATRACKs without stubbing and starting from scratch.

While the proposed lede at least drops mention of Salby's firing, it still gives top billing to a poorly-substantiated "known for". At best, it is what he is "known for" among climate change denial bloggers and right-wing columnists. If we're going to declare Salby notable on the basis of his scientific career, then it seems odd to omit three decades of it from his biography's lede.

The problem remains that some people are trying to draft and redraft an article about Salby's firing from Macquarie – and the climate change conspiracy theories and persecution fantasies that briefly appeared around it – instead of writing an article about Salby. Still a WP:COATRACK; still a WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE disaster.

Credit where it's due—up at the top of this thread I see that Agricola44 is at least trying to identify some of Salby's noteworthy scientific works. It would be great to see some effort go toward helping him out, instead of wasting time trying to put lipstick on a pig through wordsmithing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I was simply trying to make the current content comply with WP:BLP - I agree that the current content is quite insufficient, but figured that those who most oppose any changes will at least note that the proposal meets the policies far better than the extant wording does. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that your version, while slightly improved over the current version, suffered from essentially the same BLP problems and relied on the same sources. (The emphasis remained on Teach the Controversy instead of "write the biography".) We had a clean, albeit brief, stub at one point: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murry_Salby&oldid=598168770. Sportfan5000 reverted back to the BLP-violating version half an hour later, and we've been stuck with the article being protected in a BLP-violating state ever since. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I was in process of addressing that when the article was locked, a one sentence article doesn't seem to be very helpful from an encyclopedia BTW. I'm still trying to fix the issue. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand those who complain about this being an attack page and a BLP violation and all that. MastCell made a convincing argument on this very same page as to why including stuff that is referenced to reliable sources, even if it's negative, isn't a BLP violation. For instance, what Macquarie University says on their own website about why they fired him is unquestionably a reliable source. BLP doesn't mean every word has to be examined with a microscope. And the phrase "known for" is frequently used in leads of biographies such as David Bowie, though maybe it's different for academics--I don't know. Jinkinson talk to me 00:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What Macquarie University says on their own website about why they fired him is a PRIMARY source. It gives us their side of the story, but is not an independent assessment of what happened. That's why we need reliable SECONDARY sources. -- 101.119.15.192 (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the guy does have two narratives playing against each other, a 'very' accomplished scientist, publishing papers, and gaining assignments at teaching institutions around the world. Meanwhile he had some part in creating two companies during his years in Boulder, that were essentially hiring him, and the situation was investigated with many inconclusive points but some final determinations that were pretty damning in science circles. … While that was being worked out he was out of the country in Australia where he had a somewhat tumultuous relationship with the school, while gaining notoriety for espousing theories denying global warming, including high-profile speeches, some readily available on YouTube. As an outside observer he seems to be plagued by bad record keeping/bureaucratic practices which are red flags for those trying to procure and manage grants. The challenge going forward is how to balance all this and be NPOV, while telling his story. It can be done but it will obviously take care and reasonable editors to work together. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation because WP needs to be fair about the subject at all times. The AfD will pass but not on any of the controversies. It's shrouded in WP:PROF and h-index. That's all well and good and the article should be weighted heavily towards the !vote reason for inclusion. If that's why he's on WP, that's what WP should cover in his bio. Personaly I think he's a rather average professor but I don't think editors are weighing that. Is he in the top-half of climatologists or is he a contrarian with a target on his back? --DHeyward (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC).

I think the situation is simply more complicated than we may be presenting. My impression at this point is we should try to prioritize which of his publications are most notable, and discuss those in brief. Reading through the court documents, the guy seemed to be dealing with data intensive research, managing a small staff, students, and, at home, a teenager, and a divorce. All seemed to hit the fan of sorts mid-2000s. To effectively move forward I suggest two tracks be worked on separately; focus on his career with light touches on his family life through the mid 2000s, and try to make sense of everything after that. His problems with U. of Colorado-Boulder, which largely erupted during his approved sabbatical to Australia, resulted in his returning to his lab and research of 25+ years which had been dismantled, boxed, moved into storage, and seemingly destroyed or locked away. His entire career had been disheveled, this was a huge turning event for any academic in any field. Many projects, including addressing reprinting of his original thesis, had to be abandoned, all his contracts were disrupted, at least. I've worked with enough academics to know they are a squirrelly bunch, peculiar in their own ways. I think it's in everyone's best interest to sort out the first part of his bio, and work with care on the rest. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You've done a great job assembling his work history. The NSF incident would certainly be part of that. I'd be reluctant to mention family/divorce/etc. IMO the ozone paper is his notable contribution to the field (I tend to discount textbooks as they are usually a useful compendium, but not novel - imagine the h-index of a high-count content contributor on WP if every undergraduate paper cited thei articles). Legal filings are generally problematic as a source for BLPS. There is a higher level view of BLP that speaks of it's purpose: in regards to future employment, would this article prevent it, encourage it or be neutral? That's a harder question but relevant to BLPs. --DHeyward (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

To touch on one point, I don't think we can touch future events without reliable sourcing, and even then would have to be careful. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm speaking about tone and balance. For future readers. We're not a tabloid. If he dies tomorrow, the article should read the same tomorrow as it would have if written from scratch ten years from now. There is no RECENTISM or EVENTUALISM with BLPs so what is news now, is largely irrelevant to his biography. An example already brought up is that his firing shouldn't be the lead sentence. The NSF conclusion and the ending of his employment are but events in a long career. Neither of those events are what he is noted for. With all the mentions of notability being centered on WP:PROF, it is still rather light compared to recent news. His academic research has not been questioned. He's not been charged or convicted of a crime and the only academic related incident appears to be his dismissal for not teaching classes (which has no relevance to his notability or contribution to his field but is an event his professional life - it's not a lead sentence item and arguably isn't a main paragraph item). --DHeyward (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the key phrase is his academic research has not been questioned. Meanwhile he is listed under ML Salby, Murry, and Murry L, and be all appearances was completed gifted at getting grants, and research but not much of a promoter. We need to rely on editors here who are more experienced at digging up his academic work and presenting it. I can only do a so-so job presently but will try if no one else steps up to task. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Copied question form Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

Q; Finding academic reviews of Murry Salby's published work?

Hi, this climatologist has published dozens of peer-reviewed articles, and two textbooks. I'm hoping to find guidance on locating reviews of his work, as well as how to structure presenting the information. Doe sit make sense to list all his peer reviewed published work. How do we note which ones are most notable and should definitely be talked about? Etc. Any help appreciated. Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

A;

"How to structure presenting of the information" -- do you mean you plan on improving/extending his WP article, or is this for some other project? There will be different best practices depending on where you are presenting your work. One way to get a feel for the notability of an academic paper is it's citation count (available via google scholar), and perhaps the impact factor of the journal where it was published. I would not recommend listing all his published work. Our article says he has published over 100 articles (which is about right for a productive scientist of his age), and I doubt they are listed in full anywhere, except perhaps on his own curriculum vitae. As for reviews of his work, that is tricky. If you just google his book names, you get tons of blog posts and user reviews, which are not WP:RS. I suspect that e.g. nature_(magazine) or science news or science_(magazine) may have published some reliable reviews of his books when came out, but you'd probably have to have good online access through a university to search their archives. As for the articles, those don't usually have "reviews" written about them by experts. That is done privately by the journal before the article is published. Once it is published, the reader trusts that the editorial board of the journal has verified that the work is basically correct, viable, and of interest to the community. Some articles have "responses" published by other authors in the same (or next) issue of the journal, which are usually critiques of methods or conclusions. Basically, do not trust normal web searches for this guy. He is pretty unique, in that he is an actual atmospheric scientist who denies human-caused climate change, and that colors everything that you will see on google. (As far as I can tell, he is still not a specialist on climate change per se, rather being focused on upper atmospheric wave propagation for most of his early career.)SemanticMantis (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. This is only to help improve the WP article, I have no interest in the entire subject area outside of the article.

Looking at impact factor, it seems tied more to the journal than to the articles it contains so it may make more sense to note which of Salby's articles have the highest citation count.

I have not seen a curriculum vitae for Salby, and it doesn't seem like he promotes himself or his work, but has been doing some speaking engagements linked to global warming more recently.

Mid-2000s his entire work lab was dismantled, with varying disputes why, but the net effect is likely all his work in process was disrupted, so I'm trying to focus on accurately portraying his work from early 1980s-2005/6. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

He jumped between at least a few different universities at the level of Associate prof. or higher. I guarantee you he was promoting his work in his field to achieve that! As for impact factor, think of that as a way of assessing the general prestige of a journal. Consider a made-up example: if he has two articles, each with 50 citations, the one in "Nature" will be more notable than the one in "Journal of Atmos. Sci", since "Nature" has a higher impact factor. One of the reasons that it is hard to get into Nature is that it covers all areas of science, so any particular article is seen by the editorial board as not only the top of its field, but so important that even non-specialists should know about it. As for the CV, I suspect you might find an old one online if you search long enough. But, not all academics post them to the public (I don't). It might be a long shot, but you could try to just ask him for it. If you are polite and say you want to use it to improve his WP article, he might go for it. Note the CV itself will not be a WP:RS, but it can point you towards sources that are. I really think the best thing in this case would be to look for "response" articles or "book review" blurbs in the major science rags. Finding the existence of such things is usually free/open, check at WP:REX if you need help getting access to full text. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I am copying this to the article in question so it can aid in that article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Using opinion article for factual claims: BLP violation?

This BLP uses an opinion column as a primary reference for factual claims (4 uses): [2], a blog called "Climate Consensus - the 97%", "hosted by The Guardian." The article is by Dana Nuccitelli, a strident partisan in the climate-change debates. It's not clear how much (if any) editorial control The Guardian exercises over "Climate Consensus - the 97%". I'm flagging this as a possible BLP violation. If Nuccitelli's column isn't "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", this isn't a BLP-grade RS. See WP:NEWSBLOG. Comments? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think calling Dana Nuccitelli "a strident partisan" is a BLP violation, he's a [published] expert opinion on the topic. Agree that as a blog it's possibly questionable, Delingpole's rather wild opinion piece is even more questionable and I've tagged it as such. Doesn't look as though there would be any significant changes to the article if these two sources are removed, together with anything exclusively sourced to them. . . dave souza, talk 01:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I was thinking of a book by other authors, Dana's publication in this area is mostly on Skeptical Science. Re the Guardian science blogs network, Guardian science production editor JamesKingsland wrote on 15 November 2012 at 2:42pm that:

"The bloggers are held to exactly the same standards as any other contributor to the Guardian. They have all been issued with copies of the Guardian's editorial code of conduct and the PCC code of practice. If you have concerns about any article published by the Guardian, including blog posts, you should address them to the reader's editor. In the event of a libel, the same legal principles of accountability apply as for any article we publish in print or online. All our science bloggers have received training from our in-house lawyers and they're encouraged to seek their advice. They receive a share of the advertising revenue from their posts, which is dependent on the number of page impressions". . . dave souza, talk 02:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The source meets WP:BLPSPS: Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Moreover, much of the material sourced to the Guardian piece is also supported by the National Science Foundation's documented findings against Salby, and by other sources. MastCell ^Talk 02:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard re "BLPs Quoting Blog Posts By Dana Nuccitelli"

This is one of several BLP articles which refer to a blog post by Dana Nuccitelli. I have described an issue on the BLP noticeboard in section "BLPs Quoting Blog Posts By Dana Nuccitelli".Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: The reference to Nuccitelli is now gone, and I have removed the BLP-noticeboard template. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Some data on Salby

In a few weeks, I hope, I'll have a detailed report on the Salby affair, which as usual won't be RS, but as usual, will cite a large number of RS items, especially on Salby's history (50 pages). I hate to see editors wasting time looking for things already known, so I'll at least mention a few. Salby did get mentioned in The Australian, but it turned out badly, in Top Physicist Withdraws Support For Climate Sceptic Professor Sacked By Australian University. About 2 weeks' later, The Australian covered that, in Physicist Marie-Lise Chanin changes her mind on Murry Salby support, although they managed not to credit Graham Readfearn for it. The full article was as follows, excerpts might be suitable:

'‘THE distinguished physicist who said she was "scandalised" by Macquarie University's sacking of climate scientist Murry Salby has changed her mind and will not take up his cause with the International Council for Science. Marie-Lise Chanin, a French representative on the Paris-based council, said she had "not been informed" about aspects of the Salby case last month when she suggested she would refer his dismissal to the council's scientific freedom committee. "Now that I know more about the debate, I withdraw my earlier comment and obviously will not involve (the council)," she said by email. She did not say what had changed her mind but bloggers had alerted her to findings against Dr Salby made by the US National Science Foundation. "I thought that (Dr Salby) had been fired because of his position towards climate change and even though I disagree with his position, I did not think it was a reason to fire him, because I accept the freedom of scientists as long as they can prove their case," Dr Chanin said.

Dr Salby said his research cast doubt on the consensus view that the world was witnessing unprecedented changes in greenhouse gases but Macquarie insists he was sacked for his conduct, not his science. Macquarie, which recruited Dr Salby from the US in 2008, said he was dismissed this year for "failure to fulfil his teaching obligations" and for going overseas "despite repeated written instruction not to travel". Dr Salby was refused permission because the trip clashed with his teaching duties, a Macquarie spokesman said. Dr Salby said the teaching was imposed without discussion. In 2009, the NSF barred Dr Salby from receiving federal grants for three years. In a report on the NSF website, the agency's Office of Inspector-General says it substantiated five allegations against Dr Salby, including claims to do with duplication in grant proposals, the receipt of compensation from NSF awards in excess of budget amounts, and a failure to comply with policy on conflicts of interest. The OIG says it "established an extensive pattern of deceptive statements made by (Dr Salby) to his university and to NSF". Prior to joining Macquarie, Dr Salby was a professor at the University of Colorado. Macquarie did not become aware of the NSF findings until after it had dismissed Dr Salby this year, a university spokesman said yesterday. Salby could not be reached for comment.'

Dr Lise-Marie Chanin is a quite distinguished atmospheric scientist, and she ran the CNRS research institute in Paris 1986-1999, where Salby had done a sabbatical around 1997. I checked every paper he wrote from about 1990 on, and he Ack'd her in one in 1999, and authored with a few of her staff later. Obviously Salby put a long-time associate in contact with The Australian for its August 23 stories (how else would they have known?), about a week and a half after the NSF problem (and court cases) had already been exposed. I.e., he got her to go out on a limb that had already been chainsawed. Of course, the blogs aren't RS, but the August 13 story in The Australian at least matches reality. JohnMashey (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

While not RS of course, people might want to check My review of the 2012 book at Amazon.

FACTUAL CORRECTION: "Salby argued that he was fired because of his contrarian position on climate change." That isn't quite accurate, if one actually reads Salby's email really carefully. He never quite said that, just implied it strongly, but the bloggers and commenters interpreted it that way, strongly. It is of course, quite difficult to fire professors for contrarian positions, and a few commenters knew that.

FACTUAL CORRECTION: Salby didn't resign in 2007, but gave notice 01/29/08, effective 01/31/08, from p.133 of the 2nd lawsuit against CU This was about 2 weeks after the event on p.6. I looked that up and summarized in this post "Court says show cause why case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to file pleadings, else case will be dismissed without prejudice and costs awarded by C.R.S. 12-16-113(1), Salby would pay defendant costs." JohnMashey (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking into the OIG report in some detail, it shows evidence of a university investigation on October 2006 and supports, in less detail, the point that from December, 2006, through August, 2007, Professor Salby was on a second sabbatical leave in Australia. The court document shows that the university committee made recommendations on 20 August 2007 for disciplinary action, but the OIG report doesn't go into so much detail. dave souza, talk 10:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct, the details are in the court case, including the back-and-forth that happened after Salby got back to CU in Fall 2007. He was very hard to find, and they documented efforts to get him to come to his lab and sort things out. A real CU Conflict of Interest investigation hadn't gotten going before he resigned. The NSF already had more than enough to debar him, so focused on just 2 of the contracts, but had investigations proceeded further, much more CoI would have been found quite easily. People will have to decide whether the court cases are RS or not. JohnMashey (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

FACTUAL CORRECTION: Salby is described: 'University of Colorado Boulder (1978-2007)" That is not quite correct. I have never been able to find a real C.V., but if one does a Google Scholar search for ML Salby and limits to 1978-1986, one can find papers: 1979 NCAR 1980 NCAR 1981 NCAR 1982 NCAR (3) 1984 GFDL 1984? but says "current affiliation CU" consistent with a 1984 start there I *think* he went directly to NCAR and the GFDL mention was one of these visiting researcher slots for a few months, but am not certain. In any case, NCAR 1979-1983 and CU 1984-2007 (or 2008, actually) would be better approximation. I looked at almost every paper from 1990 on, but not the earlier ones much. JohnMashey (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I've made the article a bit vaguer on the precise timing of his start at CU. Have also gone over the NSF investigation and clarified the timing: it indicates that Salby was suspended from using CU research facilities in October 2006, went on sabbatical to Oz durng 2007, and as the uni's final decision approached resigned. If Salby's court submission is ok as a source, we could note that he resigned in January 2008. . dave souza, talk 09:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Article on Salby at City Journal

- by Rupert Darwall, author of Age of Global Warming: An Unsettling Climate: Global-warming proponents betray science by shutting down debate. Paywalled, but excerpted at JoNova [3], who contributed to Darwall's article.

It looks like Darwall adds some nuance & details to Salby's story, in particular his abrupt dismissal from Macquarie University in 2013. According to Nova,

In April 2013, concluding a European tour to present his research, Salby arrived at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris for a flight back to Australia, where he was a professor of climate science at Macquarie University. He discovered, to his dismay, that the university had canceled the return leg of his nonrefundable ticket. With Salby stranded, Macquarie then undertook misconduct proceedings against him that swiftly culminated in his dismissal.

Not a typical academic dismissal case, & not mentioned in our current article. Nova's posts has excerpts from the paywalled article. Hopefully, it will be made available online. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Salby had sent email to Nova, saying:

″15. Upon arriving at Paris airport for my return to Australia, I was advised that my return ticket (among the resources Macquarie agreed to provide) had been cancelled. The latest chapter in a pattern, this action left me stranded in Europe, with no arrangements for lodging or return travel. The ticket that had been cancelled was non-refundable.

16. The action ensured my absence during Macquarie’s misconduct proceedings.″

The misconduct meeting was 04/24/13 Sydney time, but Salby had already missed the meeting. He spoke the evening 04/24/13 in Oslo, Norway for the Klimarealistene group and mid-day 04/25/13 Salby was speaking there for (UiO Institutt for geofag). Since Oslo is 8 hours behind Sydney, he had already missed the meeting by more than a day before leaving Oslo. Despite frequent Paris-to-Sydney flights, it was 05/02/13 before he returned to Sydney, as per the court ruling paragraph#256. He was invited to attend the next meeting May 9, but did not. Hence, the bold sentence was outright deception. Just as the US judge bought none of Salby's arguments versus CU, the Australian judge bought none of them against MQ. Darwall's article added nothing useful, and in light of the court ruling, his story was bogus in numerous ways, since he had zero skepticism for Salby's claims. For one example see (non-RS) this post.JohnMashey (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)