Talk:Fred Singer/Archive 3

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

What's up with the "See Also" section?

Check out the main page. --GoRight (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a copy&paste error by the protecting admin. I've taken it out for now - I could not figure out if it was intended as anything useful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

unidentified (unnamed climate scientists)

I'd like to add the adjective 'unidentified' (or 'unnamed' if you prefer) to describe the climate scientists whom ABC news quoted for its story on Fred Singer. There seems to be quite a lot of push back against this, but I don't know why.Andonee (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee

I have been trying to ignore this little spat but now that things have gotten to the point of people being blocked I guess that I'll weigh in here. To those who are trying to keep the adjective unnamed or unidentified out of the article please either provide the names or accept a technically accurate and clearly unbiased description of the article's content. Unnamed does not equate to untrustworthy, nor does it imply as much. And unnamed is a fair reflection of the article's actual content, is it not? As you know we are supposed to reflect a fair and neutral representation of what the actual source contains. --GoRight (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
GoRight, Oh dear, either I am missing something or I am disappointed. Why do you not first put "controversial" back into the first sentence on the Great Global Warming Scandal then, because most of the sources already listed [1] etc use "is a controversial..." in their opening sentence, and controversial does not mean untrustworthy either? Then when you have consistently started to reflect news sources which prominently summarize things in a particular way, you can worry about giving more prominence to those parts of sources which suit you by synthetic summary, in this case wanting to give undue emphasis on unnamed versus the rest of the source. --BozMo talk 18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Meh. I shall keep things simple here by simply invoking one of KDP's favorite rationales: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. The content of each article should be considered on their own merits. --GoRight (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to other edits by GoRight not other stuff. You would be more credible if you were faintly consistent... --BozMo talk 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
"I was referring to other edits by GoRight not other stuff." - Meh again. Fine, but when KDP raises this rationale his opponent is frequently discussing inconsistencies in his editing as well. Regardless, the direction this was headed was not on topic in this thread. --GoRight (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This is pretty simple. We are trying to summarize a detailed source in one sentence. The aspects we choose to emphasize are relevant, and we have a responsibility to ensure that our emphases are in line with those of the source. You are choosing to emphasize the fact that these climate scientists were not identified by ABC News, which implies skepticism. Even if it did not, you are substituting your own emphases for those of the source.

The source says: "ABC News showed Singer's most recent report on global warming to climate scientists from NASA, from Stanford University and from Princeton. They dismissed it as 'fabricated nonsense.'" ABC News does not take note or find it noteworthy that these scientists are unnamed. Instead, they cite their academic affiliations - that is, they emphasize the credibility of these scientists. So you're taking a reliable source which emphasizes credibility, and substituting wording which, while literally accurate, emphasizes a lack of credibility. Do you see how that is inappropriate, misleading, and an abuse of reliable sources? MastCell Talk 19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That is nonsense. If "academic affiliations" implied credibility, then Singer's background would trump them all. As written in the original source, the statement is just an anonymous opinion. For all we know, ABC only reported the negative comments and ignored the others. I suggest removing the entire sentence as WP:WEASEL. Q Science (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd be OK with that. --GoRight (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Singer's academic affiliations are mentioned prominently in the article, and comprise essentially the first 2/3 of the lead. It's hard to see this as anything other than a crude caricature of my argument. You should also probably re-read WP:WEASEL before using it as a cudgel; it doesn't say what you think it does. MastCell Talk 19:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
(EC @ MastCell) "This is pretty simple." - I agree that this is pretty simple. Does the source identify the climate scientists, or not? If not then referring to them as unnamed or unidentified is a completely valid and accurate reflection of the source's actual contents.
"ABC News does not take note or find it noteworthy that these scientists are unnamed." - Why would they? They are the ones who CHOSE to leave them unnamed, I assume that they actually DID know who they talked to. The question in the reader's mind is why leave them unnamed? Both you and ABC are reading this from an AGW proponent's POV. As a self-acknowledged skeptic obviously I see things slightly differently.
For the sake of discussion here, let's look at the implications of your point. If it is actually true that the fact that these climate scientists are unnamed truly calls into question their credibility then that would be perfectly obvious to any reader of the source, correct? In other words, their lack of names within the article would be plainly obvious to the reader. Assuming that this is as significant as you claim then I would argue that Wikipedia readers should likewise be aware of the fact that the original source does not actually name the scientists in question. The current text of the article leaves this open to question. I merely want to make it explicit for the reader.
Given all this, and assuming the significance that the lack of knowing the names takes on by your own argument, it appears to me that the current article is biased by omission and should be corrected. --GoRight (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's vital to respect our sources. I think the proposed edit fails to respect the cited source, and abuses it by misrepresenting its content and meaning. I've explained why I think that. You're not convincing me otherwise by describing ABC News as "POV", and insisting that you need to "make explicit" for the reader something that the source obviously felt was unimportant. That's called WP:OR (in a best-case scenario). MastCell Talk 19:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. The core point is that we do not include which things are not reported in a WP:RS. We report things that are reported. Please note that NPR did not acknowledge the Dalai Lama as the spiritual leader of the Tibetans in todays "News on the hour". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that including the adjective "unidentified" is disrespecting the source when it is the source that leaves them "unidentified". Bottom line, does "unidentified" misrepresent the contents of the source in any way (i.e. does the source actually identify them and I missed it somehow)? If not then it is a valid way to summarize the contents of the source and you are removing properly sourced content. --GoRight (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


So, if a reliable source uses weasel words, then it is ok for us to make them more nebulous in order to discredit someone in a BLP? Q Science (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


(EC @ SS) True, but in this case I am arguing that we should accurately describe what WAS reported in the WP:RS. The climate scientists they relied upon and whose opinions they provided are, in point of fact, unidentified climate scientists. I assume that you believe that our description of the subjects should be accurate and as complete as justified given the source cited, correct? --GoRight (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I continue to think that this is straightforward, as I explained here: you are abusing a source by substituting your own points of emphasis for those in the reliable source. Your response was to ascribe a "pro-AGW POV" to ABC News, which I found unimpressive as a policy-based argument, and to lean heavily on technicalities. Tthe issue is not what is technically true - millions of things meet that bar. The issue is how we can honestly summarize the cited source in one sentence, without substituting our own personal emphases for those of the source. Do you not see that, or am I not making sense? MastCell Talk 20:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I understand your point. Is it OK if I disagree with it, or at least it's premise? I am not emphasizing anything by providing a complete and accurate description of the source's content. My description completely agrees with what actually appears in the article, and objectively so. --GoRight (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"why keep inserting material that is clearly objected to on the talk page? There is no way that a serious reading of the talk page could suggest that there would be support for this wording." - This edit summary is funny. There are two or three people objecting and two or three people supporting. Would I not be just as justified in saying "why keep inserting removing material that is clearly objected to supported on the talk page? There is no way that a serious reading of the talk page could suggest that there would be support for objection to this wording." Whatever, it's not worth arguing about further. Have it your way. This is yet another example of how the BLPs of skeptics are systematically abused, IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the "BLP abuse" in citing a reliable source directly addressing a relevant aspect of this individual's biography, and I ponder BLP abuse quite frequently. I could muster some sympathy for the global view that this article is too WP:COATRACKy, and that too much of it re-fights the Global Warming Wars, but this particular campaign - to editorialize about the quality of ABC News' journalism - is hard to take seriously. MastCell Talk 21:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No, of course you don't see the bias. I wouldn't think that you could since no one thinks of themselves as biased, but that does not imply that bias does not exist in the world, correct? Consider the following:
  1. Fact: The climate scientists are NOT identified in the source.
  2. Fact: The above fact is plainly obvious to anyone reading the source.
  3. Fact: You have argued that noting the climate scientists are unidentified negatively affects the perception of their credibility. (Although I obviously have disagreed.)
  4. Fact: You have argued that noting the scientists were from NASA, Stanford, etc. positively affects the perception of their credibility.
  5. Fact: You have argued that those elements which reflect positively on the credibility of the scientists SHOULD be included while simultaneously arguing that those elements which reflect negatively on the credibility of the scientists SHOULD NOT be included.
Personally I believe that any truly objective observer would discern a bias in those facts. Now I don't mean this analysis as a personal attack in any way, you are entitled to your opinions even if they show evidence of bias in this particular instance. But like it or not you are arguing to exclude objective facts which are plainly known from the source being cited based purely on your own assertion that doing so reflects negatively on these climate scientists.
Based on this I am arguing that the current text is biased by the omission of relevant objective facts clearly verifiable from the WP:RS being cited. --GoRight (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, if that is honestly how you see my argument, then either I've failed to accurately communicate my concerns or you've failed to listen. Or both. I'm arguing that our emphases should coincide with those in the cited source, rather than conflict with them. I view that as an essential component of honest editing here. In this case, the cited source emphasized the credibility of these scientists and didn't seem concerned that they were unnamed. You seem quite concerned with emphasizing the fact that the scientists were unnamed, but that is an editorial emphasis which you're attempting to force onto a source which makes quite a different point.

I'm a bit bothered by what I see as feigned incomprehension here. Many, many technically "true" statements could be made about the source. However, since we are summarizing it in one sentence, the aspects and wording we choose in that one sentence must not only be technically "true", but must also accurately convey the meaning, tone, and content of the source. I know that you're sophisticated enough to readily grasp this, which is why I'm bothered by the way you repeatedly fall back on describing this as me "omitting" an "objective fact". We've omitted hundreds, if not thousands, of conceivable "objective facts" from our one-sentence summary; the ones we choose to include need to honestly represent the source. That's my point. MastCell Talk 18:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion may have become moot. I have used Singer's letter to include his own direct response to the charges leveled in the news report as they had been included in the BLP. I assume that you won't object to including Singer's own response? --GoRight (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This edit war should stop. The original quote is

  • ABC News showed Singer's most recent report on global warming to climate scientists from NASA, from Stanford University and from Princeton. They dismissed it as "fabricated nonsense."

Worded another way

  • ABC News reports that an unspecified number of climate scientists from at least one of three institutions stated that Singer's report is "fabricated nonsense."

According to WP:Weasel, text should not be used unless it meets the following.

  • Who says that?
  • How many people think that?

The original quote fails both of these. In addition, this is a BLP. Using hearsay (like this quote) to smear a person is never acceptable. Q Science (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. All we do when relying on secondary sources is "hearsay". And you misuse WP:WEASEL - it applies to us, not to ABC. You're also misrepresenting the policy. And, BTW, "ABC said that". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The following quote is from BLP Reliable sources with the phrase "less-than-reliable" omitted. Maybe that is the difference. Perhaps it is ok for "highly reliable" news sources to use weasel phrases and anonymous sources. Q Science (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"When {omitted} publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?"
I fail to see the Weasel phrase, but yes, you got part of it. A RS is a source we trust directly. So if they report it, we can repeat it. Do you claim they invented those scientists or their comment? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's also a fairly selective quotation of policy. The immediately preceding sentences read: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. So a) we're not talking about gossip here, but about the scientific opinions of researchers at major academic institutions, b) the source is reliable, whether we take the source to mean ABC News or Stanford/NASA/Columbia, c) the material is presented as factual and is relevant to the subject of the article, as it addresses Singer specifically by name. MastCell Talk 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
"a) we're not talking about gossip here, but about the scientific opinions of researchers at major academic institutions" - With all due respect, this sounds exactly like the type of water cooler gossip that these climate scientists would engage in. I see nothing "scientific" about calling something fabricated (or fraudulant as discussed below).
"b) the source is reliable, whether we take the source to mean ABC News or Stanford/NASA/Columbia" - ABC News is questionable as we see below because they don't seem to have gotten the quote right, however we are NOT talking about the official opinions of Stanford/NASA/ColumbiaPrinceton ... we don't actually know whose opinions we are talking about because the actual sources are unidentified.
"c) the material is presented as factual and is relevant to the subject of the article, as it addresses Singer specifically by name." - Well, I guess you win that point.  :) --GoRight (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
If you believe ABC News to be an unreliable source, please take that up at the reliable sources noticeboard; such a determination would affect literally thousands of articles where we utilize ABC News as a source, so please solicit broad community feedback on your proposal. If the concern is that Fred Singer was angry about his portrayal in the ABC News piece and wrote a letter conveying that anger, then we can of course mention that here, but it hardly demolishes the credibility of ABC News as an organization, I would think. MastCell Talk 18:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you've hit on the salient point--an "organization" may be "reliable" (i.e., meet Wiki reliability guidelines), but that says nothing of individual reports or articles done by individuals within that organization. Citing Wiki's reliability rule says nothing about specific reliability, which is the gold standard and very objective of the reliability "test"; i.e., "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The authors must be credible, not just their organization.
Nothing in the ABC article meets these tests. A hit piece is not "credible published material" and the authors have certainly shown no trustworthiness and, especially, authoritativeness in citing anonymous individuals in a piece aimed directly at discrediting Singer. The only part of the test standard met is the "reliable publication process" one. It is also original research requiring conjectural attachment to the NIPCC, something BLP standards require be immediately deleted. --John G. Miles (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

SS wrote "Do you claim they invented those scientists or their comment?" Well it appears that the original quote as reported on the ABC website was "fraudulent nonsense" which was curiously changed to "fabricated nonsense" according to this letter written by Singer to ABC News. So yes, I would say the veracity of the quote is questionable.Andonee (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee

It would be fine to put in the article that Singer claims the quote said "fraudulent" rather than "fabricated." Why he's less offended by being accused of "fraud" than "fabrication" (or vice-versa) escapes me, but it's reasonable to mention his disputation of the quote. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you've gathered that Singer is "less offended" by the choice of words--this seems to be something that you've fabricated, SBHB. Singer was merely stating the simple fact that the ABC News website changed the word "fraudulent" to "fabricated". In the letter to ABC News, Singer speculated that this was done "perhaps on advice of ABC’s lawyers." If SS, MastCell, et al. vehemently oppose the addition of the word "unnamed", I propose that we add the sentence, "In an open letter to ABC News, Singer referred to these accusations as "anonymous slurs." as per Singer's letter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.227.249 (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This letter was an excellent find, Andonee, I have used it as a source to simply include Singer's own responses to the ABC news charges in the BLP. I think that this should address the original concern more than adequately. What do you think? --GoRight (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, GoRight. I think it's a nice way of dealing with this impasse. My only concern is that the "it" in the next sentence ("Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt...") lacks a clear antecedent. I've been put in Wikipedia's editing penalty box, and I won't be able to edit Singer's page for a few more hours.Andonee (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee

Have we established that the response is sufficiently notable?--BozMo talk 19:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
After rereading WP:N I draw BozMo's attention to WP:NNC. --GoRight (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It's notability is established by the very inclusion of the ABC piece in the BLP. If that is notable so is Singer's response. --GoRight (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with noting that Singer objected to the ABC News piece, and sourcing his letter. MastCell Talk 22:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late addition to this discussion, but I think the effort to censor a single completely accurate descriptor of the anonymous usage of scientists in a purely ad hominem remark with no basis in article commentary or reporting displays very creative POV pushing. Reliability is meant to be a guide to finding reliable articles, but the two are not equivalent in the least. And it misses the point in this case anyway: It's not the content of the article (weasel words and all) that is at issue here. It is the censorship of a single-worded accurate descriptor of what is presented in the article. Whole paragraphs are written describing articles and editors here are objecting to a single word!? --John G. Miles (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Activist Resource Center

I have given a perfectly valid reference to a page maintained by the organization itself. I have not attempted to distort what they call themselves or their site in any way. The fact that they refer TO THEMSELVES as activists is notable and especially in a BLP. It is important to provide the full context of who is making the charge. As such, WP:NPOV is not a proper defense of reverting that sourced material. If anything the revert is a violation of WP:NPOV by omission since it leaves the reader with a misleading impression of who this organization is. --GoRight (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Why don't we call them "the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world," since that's how they describe themselves? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec):You have given a reference, but it does not support your claim. It does not describe the UCS as an activist group. Indeed, if the UCS were "an activist group", why would it have a separate activist center? If you want to use a self-description of the group, use a real one. From [2]: "The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world." Or find real independent sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how the mentioning of their Activist Resource Center is any relevant in this particular context. Splette :) How's my driving? 21:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • @All of you - Meh, typical whitewashing of his attackers. The page I link to is (a) clearly their own, (b) something they call their "Activist Recourse Center" in the opening title and as the HTML title of the entire page, and (c) they have as their first sentence "Whether you are a new UCS activist or have been with us for years, we hope you find these tools interesting and useful". Advocacy clearly understates who these people are and how they even see themselves. You don't really have any wikilawyer wiggle room on that point.

    So, I am left wondering WHY you ACTUALLY object to my mentioning this aspect of the organization. Why is that? It can't be because I am distorting anything here. These are plain facts. Feel free to massage the text however you like per their about page description, but my key points are (a) they are an environmental group, and (b) the call themselves activists. These are obviously significant aspects that go directly to the core of their ideology.

    Given these are plain facts what WP:NPOV text would you propose here that to include them? Alternatively you might simply find a less controversial source to make the claim you want which is that he is a skeptic/contrarian. Using a less controversial source would seem to aid your cause either way, no? --GoRight (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, am I missing something? Is this article about Fred Singer or the Union of Concerned Scientists and the organization of their NGO? Labeling them "nonprofit environmental advocacy group" is plenty of description already to give the reader some background about who this group is, that challenges Singer's view. Splette :) How's my driving? 22:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"Umm, am I missing something?" - Apparently so. This is a non-response. Please go back and try again. --GoRight (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
No. That was a non-response. This article isn't about Union of Concerned Scientists. I count three editors that disagree with you. Perhaps you may want to go back and try again making a point that convinces anyone else. Splette :) How's my driving? 23:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The question was, what WP:NPOV text would you all propose that includes these relevant facts? Otherwise, removing properly sourced material is considered disruptive. --GoRight (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The text is already NPOV. And why exactly do you consider this "relevant facts"? This is an article about Singer - not the UCS. If we go down the road you are proposing, we will end up with an endless "... ah but ..." reflections, which have no place here. Context here is Singer not the UCS, which is already described in short. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
"The text is already NPOV." - No it's not. It is biased because it seeks to imply that the people calling him a contrarian are objective when they have an obvious bias that is being whitewashed. As I said, find an alternative source that is less "activist" and then we can use that instead, otherwise I want the article to point out the nature of those making the charges. This is not an unreasonable position.

The article should provide an accurate description of the source so that the reader knows how much weight to put on the comment being made. In this case the weight should be near zero since the group obviously has a non-neutral POV and is obviously more that willing to push that POV given that they call themselves activists. Isn't there some reputable organization, and no RealClimate does NOT count given their obvious bias as well, that has pointed out that Singer is a skeptic/contrarian? If you want to make that point in the article why not use an reputable organization rather than a bunch of biased yahoos?

Have any of the reputable scientific organizations made this claim? If not, then I think my point is made about the notability and significance of the "activist" nature of UCS. --GoRight (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are the secondary sources that consider the background of the UCS a problem in regards to Singer? If there aren't any - then this is simply WP:OR, and simple POV. It does not matter that you consider it a problem - nor is your argumentation anything other than an attempt to discredit (beforehand) the critics of Singer. Your attempt to dismiss the UCS and realclimate as "a bunch of biased yahoos" is rather transparent POV. As far as i can tell, the UCS is considered a reputable scientific organization. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe you're missing three points, Kim:
  • The first is that ad hominem name calling doesn't belong in the article in the first place. The more you or anyone else argues it is a "weak" ad hominem (with which I agree), the more it undermines the very arguments being made to keep it in. It simply doesn't matter how "weak" a "sourced" name-caller is, it doesn't belong in a Wiki article at all, especially in a living person's biography.
  • The second is that the description added by GoRight doesn't make any claims as to the background of the UCS being "a problem." It merely adds additional modifiers to the already existing labeling of UCS as "a nonprofit environmental advocacy group." If you don't like the one, then get rid of the other as the one merely modifies the other! Regardless, the first point made is the dispositive one.
  • Finally, the "Union of Concerned Scientists" is not a "scientific organization" at all. It has over 75,000 members[3], but less than 50 "experts" listed on their "Meet Our UCS Experts" page[4]--none of which have any credentials whatsoever in climate, atmospheric, or meteorological sciences. Only two have degrees that have tangents into the climate area (physics and chemistry). To suggest it deserves some special notability when anyone can join for a fee is specious.
So I ask the following question to everyone wanting to excise one label and retain the other and assume a non-response merely indicates the double standard at play here:
Do you support dropping all labels and other extraneous modifiers preceding all references to an individual, organization, etc.? It would solve a whole hellofa lot of contention and revert wars regarding the article. --John G. Miles (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a clear case of WP:SYN. As far as I'm concerned, the UCS "holds an adversarial relationship" with Singer is because his work during the last 30 years is a politically motivated crock of shit has not found significant support in the scientific community. If you want to make a claim why the UCS criticizes Singer, find a source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not arguing whether the adversarial relationship is deserved. I'm merely pointing out that the relationship exists. To point out that the two sides are on opposite sides of an issue is the purpose of GoRight's provided source, though I think it's awkward and would personally rewrite the whole thing (which, given the time, I may some day get to--I would encourage GoRight to do so). Someone asked a question pertaining to relevance and I thought the connection was clear and needed to be pointed out.
The whole bio is a "synthesis" of sources so the question is whether the context is accurate. Wiki rules are meant to promote fairness, accuracy, and even information(!) (which would certainly include relevant context), not as an editorial ax substituting for a particular editor's POV--hence the overriding rule of common sense and WP:IGNORE in applying the rules, not 'He who cites the most rules wins.'
Furthermore, I'd be glad to gain a consensus in the talk pages on a single standard that all will follow when it comes to such "synthesized," unsourced labels such as "liberal, conservative, nonprofit, advocacy, activist, etc." and then have someone edit the entire article in one fell swoop to bring it into compliance (or allow others to insert their own preferred unsourced labels if that is the only standard consensus seeks--I personally dislike them as an attempt to prejudice the reader who holds or doesn't hold to a particular label's implied belief system). I think it could greatly reduce the friction immediately apparent between some editors on this site. A similar agreement on writing a biography versus arguing with the biographer's views would be equally useful. --John G. Miles (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, GoRight provided the source. This is about his edit, not mine.
"I think it's awkward and would personally rewrite the whole thing" - I agree, somewhat, but it's not totally bad either. See my original version which was short and concise but deemed inadequate by my peers here. So I am offering alternatives and pulling in additional sources to try and find a reasonable compromise. The current approach is specifically designed to avoid a number of the common arguments from the get go, which I prefer even if the text is a bit awkward. Once we settle on the content we can massage the wording to smooth out the rough edges, if needed. --GoRight (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'm a bit old fashioned in assuming addressing others with collegial respect is appropriate. I will generally try to address others as equals here, with a "Mr." when not using the User pointer. --John G. Miles (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I see. So Singer is worthy of "Dr." Singer, but my doctorate does not count? More to the point, WP:CREDENTIAL suggests not to use academic titles when referring to a person in an article. I find it reasonable to also apply this rule on the talk page, but you are, of course, free to differ. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think jockeying for position amongst editors would be a good idea. First names are also fine with me. --John G. Miles (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the whole article could be improved with a bit of cooperation. Just a dream I have. The issuing of adhominem-label fatwas suggests (even ignoring the personal insults towards Dr. Singer by editors) a need to contextualize them when inserted, assuming they are not completely removed. BLPs are certainly the last place personal agendas should be waged. --John G. Miles (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I commend your desire for cooperation, but accusing others of issuing "fatwas" might not be the best way to foster a cooperative spirit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It was a description (albeit colorful--I'll refrain in the future for those eager to take offense), not an accusation. Just describing what I see. There are a good number of "edicts" (directives?--feel free to insert a more appropriate descriptive noun, but I think it accurately describes the tone) and insults being pronounced on GoRight and no offers at accommodation as far as I can tell. If the description is apt, I have no problem using it. If the tone changes, my description will change along with it. Or is "Fred Singer" a gathering place for the mutual exchange of insults? If so, perhaps we should start all discussions in WP:BLP/N. --John G. Miles (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

I have found two secondary sources to substantiate the "activist" and "liberal" claim being made and have now included the least objectionable (I assume) of the two in the article. I still think that we should likewise include the bit about their funding since the article also makes note of the minor and unsolicited donation Singer received from ExxonMobil. Good for the goose = good for the gander I always say. --GoRight (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the Union of Concerned Scientists page lists a number of such articles under its criticism section. If you think it's necessary I can certainly copy these here as well if you still have doubts that this is a liberal activist group. --GoRight (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that given the obvious (where the UCS lies on the political spectrum), it is not inappropriate to point out the policy positions motivating disagreement with the biographical person in question (especially with ad hominems). If a label is to be used (I prefer they not be for the reasons I gave above, but the present state of the article seems to indicate a previous consensus that even unsourced labels are appropriate), it should be sourced and give the reader understanding as to why an adversarial approach is being taken by a particular individual or group towards another individual or group--in this case, Dr. Singer. My preferred editing here would be a parenthetical comment, rather than a label, about the organizations views in relation to those of Singer. I'd welcome input from any of the other editors here who would like to contribute. --John G. Miles (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I added the above comment assuming the main article had not already been edited. Having gone there, I see that it is already sourced as a parenthetical comment and think the new wording sounds much better and is more neutral & informative than before. --John G. Miles (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

KDP now asserts that my latest version is WP:OR. Please back that up. I have provided two independent sources and the phrase I have used comes directly word for word from the first source. How is that WP:OR? It's not even WP:SYN since the phrase comes directly from one of the sources. So please, where is the WP:OR? --GoRight (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are the secondary sources that consider the UCS's background a problem with regards to Singer? If there are such - then what is the weight of these? Is it the general opinion in the literature that the UCS has a problem in this regard? No? Then its WP:OR from your side. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Here, let me even transcribe the relevant sentence for you from the first srouce: "The Union of Concerned Scientists, an activist group generally regarded as liberal, also has accused the administration of distorting or suppressing scientific views it doesn't like". Where have I conducted WP:OR? --GoRight (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Since when is Singer "the administration"? (ie: Source A (not about Singer) on UCS; Source B (UCS about Singer) => Synthesised (OR) into a description about the UCS on Singer). But lets let this slide for a moment (since its obvious OR with regards to Singer), what is the general description about the UCS? (ie. does the weight of sources consider this relevant?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The article strictly discusses the UCS's views on climate change, not their politics. There is absolutely no purpose of mentioning political views, when they add nothing of value to this article. What is the reader supposed to get from including the political leanings of the UCS? That global warming is part of some sort of liberal agenda? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I take exception only to your first sentence. One thing the article does not strictly discuss is UCS's view on climate change. It merely inserts UCS's ad hominem "name-calling" into the fray. I strongly agree with your statements regarding political leanings being included in an article and would suggest the application of the same standard elsewhere (search the article for "conservative" and other labels that also add nothing to the discussion such as "nonprofit," "advocacy," etc., but act merely as placeholders for "I consider this a 'good' organization or 'bad' organization," respectively. Would you mind making the edits?--I've not yet established squatter's rights hereand would be the first to support your effort at the elimination of double standards here. --John G. Miles (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Bingo. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"That global warming is part of some sort of liberal agenda?"- Why would you think that? What the reader should get out of it is that the charges are being made by Singer's political enemies. As I said above I have no problem with calling him a skeptic or a contrarian. That is, after all, what he is. That's not what is in dispute here. What's in dispute is that the reader should be informed of the obvious biases of whomever is leveling charges against the subject of any BLP, not just this one. In this instance we just happen to be discussing Fred Singer and UCS. --GoRight (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

AEB1

(outdent)

Some time later this week I will setup an RfC on this point, so stay tuned. I assume that there are no objections to gathering outside opinions on this point, is that correct? --GoRight (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you know the charges are being made by Singer's political enemies? What evidence do you have that? As an outside observer, I do not see any relevance to mentioning political affiliations. To me, when you label the UCS as an organization with a liberal agenda, it gives the impression that the issue of global warming is drawn against strictly political lines, when in fact, the issue was initially drawn on scientific grounds and then later adopted into politics when it became an issue of public policy. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect and no intended malice here, N, you are being completely naive about what is really going on here on this very page. What is the point of even including a comment that Singer is a "climate contrarian" if not to merely paint him as biased? Painting someone as being "biased" is a political move, not a scientific one. There has been no scientific analysis presented that Singer's positions are anything other than heart-felt honest assessments of the science involved. It is a common smear tactic and nothing more. I am being a realist here. I would much prefer that the smears simply be left out the BLPs altogether, but I know that the editors who are frequently inserting this type of material will continue to do so relentlessly. So I accept that these smears are a reality, but if we are to remain WP:NPOV here we have to balance the smears ... but all within proper policy, of course. Those are the rules by which we must play.
The whole point of my edit is to bring balance to the mudslinging that is obviously going on. This group was specifically selected for inclusion here because their name includes the words "concerned" and "scientists". But even the smallest amount of investigation into this group reveals that they are NOT a group of "concerned scientists" (being a scientist is NOT a requirement of membership) but instead a group of liberal environmental activists with the key words being "environmental activists". Those are the words I first tried to insert into the article on this point but because of policy related procedural maneuvers by my opponents we have been lead to where we are now.
We are not allowed to state the simple and obvious facts here, we are forced to make these points in circumnavigated ways. I will be happy to remove the liberal word as that is not my main focus but if I have to include it to also get activist I am willing to do so. The wording is being driven by the policy objections being put in place to oppose "environmental activists". And why is THAT being opposed when it is so blatantly obvious? Because it completely diminishes the obvious bias introduced by allowing this group to be perceived as nothing more than "concerned scientists". --GoRight (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is with the inclusion of ad hominem name-calling in the first place. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia anywhere, no less on Biographies of living persons which Wikipedia established much higher standards for specifically to avoid this type of effort to denigrate someone on their own biography. If other editors insist on including it in violation of Wiki principles, it is inappropriate to then apply the double standard of not allowing it to be put in context (i.e., allowing one ad hominem while rejecting its contextualization).
I have long been an opponent of both ad homs and labeling ("conservative," "liberal," etc.) and would like to reach a single standard for both ad hominem comments and labels, which are ad hominem per se, and hope to start a talk section as soon as I can find the time. I'd like to count on you and others here who have expressed distaste for organization descriptions in this effort. I'm honestly seeking a neutral article here.
Some relevant quotes above indicating consensus on this (including your own):
There is absolutely no purpose of mentioning political views, when they add nothing of value to this article. What is the reader supposed to get from including the political leanings of the UCS? That global warming is part of some sort of liberal agenda? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Bingo. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Given time, I'll try putting together a separate section for reaching single standards --John G. Miles (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is an article on Singer. Notable opinions on Singer belong here. Notable opinions on others, in most cases, don't. I also don't see why a label as a "climate contrarian" should be considered particularly "ad hominem" or derogatory. It's a simple fact that Singer is severely at odds with the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change, and I doubt that even he would deny this - in fact, I would suspect that he would be proud of this fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It is also a simple fact that this group can properly be referred to as "environmental activists". I believe that I have more than adequately demonstrated that point using even their own publications. Do you disagree that their specific area of focus is the environment and that they even refer to themselves as activists? If we are at least agreed on those bald facts then why do you object to our bringing that point to the reader's attention in a context where it is clearly significant? And since you threw the notable word about so much there, please remind me what makes the opinion of this group significant? Why is it not simply removed per WP:UNDUE? --GoRight (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The article was unprotected under the assumption of good faith. Although the edit summary indicates that the assumption of good faith was directed towards GoRight, common sense dictates that this applied to all editors involved in the article. What were you thinking, Stephan Schulz and John G. Miles? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I was and am thinking that this article is better containing a notable opinion on Singer that has been in it for ages without any problems, that is well-sourced, undoubtedly correct and in fact undisputed, and not even particularly negative. Also see my comment above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
And I was thinking good faith assumes attempts at consensus in talk according to Wiki guidelines. An ad hominem, regardless of how "weak" (which I agree it is, but that is not the point--ad homs don't belong anywhere near a WP:BLP). It's equally ironic that an equally weak and sourced contextual remark would then spark such contrived outrage. The required dispute process is a variation of Talk:Fred Singer-->CfR-->WP:BLP/N-->WP:Mediation, not endless reverts. Length of stay in an article would only accord with the Wiki rule WP:Squatter's Rights (oops, that one doesn't exist).
Appreciate the attempt to add humor to the problem area, though. It often helps bring discussions down to where they belong--at least for those who have a sense of humor. --John G. Miles (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and sorry for stomping all over your outdent, GoRight. We'll do better next time. --John G. Miles (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Huh? You did nothing wrong. It was merely a general outdent to keep things from crowding to the right. --GoRight (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

AEB2

Nishkid64 makes an interesting point above about how UCS's claim is a scientific one, not a political one, and so applying political labels is inappropriate in that context. I am curious, do others agree that they are making a scientific statement and not a political one? --GoRight (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Is all this brouhaha over a couple of offhand comments reported in dodgy sources (CNSnews.com and cultureandmediainstitute.org)? Are we making a mountain out of a molehill here? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
RE: your edit summary. I like interacting with you, Boris. It is like having a random dictionary pop up words to improve one's vocabulary!  :)
The brouhaha is exactly what it appears to be, and nothing more. I merely want to counter the bias that the current text imposes. I don't even think it is that big of a deal but I am adamant about pursuing it out of fairness to Singer. As for the sources, they are what they are, but they DO provide secondary sources which comment on and validate the primary sources on the UCS website. You all objected to my simply adding a simple phrase, "environmental activist", based on the primary sources which are indisputable since they are WP:SPS by the organization themselves. So I moved on to the next logical level (i.e. secondary sources). Finding the required content there, I adjusted and re-asserted the material again, as seemed appropriate, in the sincere hopes that you all would discern that I am not merely making this crap up ... it is real.
Since you all seem equally adamant about keeping a completely true characterization of the group out of the article the next logical step is some form of dispute resolution. JGM has suggested one but I am not so adamant as to undertake an entire campaign here, after all Singer is a contrarian. So I shall suggest a simple RfC with a simple !vote in the hopes of drawing in enough outside opinions to settle our internal dispute one way or the other. If that goes against me, so be it. Once the larger community has spoken on the topic I am more than willing to listen.
But you never actually answered my question, is the UCS making a scientific claim or a political one? I am certain you all know why I am asking. The next question is, will any of you answer that question directly? --GoRight (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Notable opinions on Singer belong here, and I agree that climate contrarian is a good description of Dr. Singer, but since when is a comment by a political activist organization notable? At any rate, if the quote is left in, it should also be noted that it was made by a left wing "political" group since their name suggests otherwise. Q Science (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see the above discussions. If you can demonstrate that it is the weight of reliable sources that the UCS is seen as a 'left wing "political" group', then it should be considered. If on the other hand this is (as GoRight says) simply a way to "counter the bias", then it is original research and a really bad case of POV and synthesis. The pertinent question here is: Do sources that refer to the UCS usually call it such? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I decline to take another trip around that Mulberry Bush of yours since you have already demonstrated an unwillingness to adhere to the outcome if it goes against you. Cite for me the policy that states I can only include descriptions of organizations from WP:RS if they also are about Singer. I find that line of reasoning on your part to be particularly disingenuous under the circumstances and in light of the obvious facts. --GoRight (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you point me at any place where i've "demonstrated an unwillingness to adhere to the outcome"? Please, show me, since that would make some explanations about your unwillingness to adhere to AGF. As for the polic(ies): WP:SYN,WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:NPOV. (and i've pointed it out several times (as has several others)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I extend WP:AGF to you far more often than I am sure you imagine, but it stops in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I guess the results of the RfC that you started, where my position was supported, counts as you not assuming good faith towards all that do not share your point of view? Since i'm apparently unable to see "clear evidence" (so the others must also be). Feel free to remove both yours and my comments here, once you've thought things over. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Using that logic, Anthony Watts should be called a meteorologist, not a blogger. I had never read much about UCS until this edit war. Based on what I read, it depends on the source. The mainstream press says one thing, many others say the opposite. The facts are that they support specific people for political office. The various non-profit organizations I belong to are specifically not allow to lobby, what I've read about UCS seems to be over that line. Therefore, I don't agree with your OR claim. At any rate, I don't see their opinion to be notable. Q Science (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Here, let's take Q's notability argument a step further. Is the UCS a recognized authority on Singer and thus they are even qualified to render such an opinion? --GoRight (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
You are confused. We don't take their word for it, we report it as their opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not confused on that point. My question goes to the notability of that opinion. Shall we also start including the opinions of every group that comes up with a snappy name and issues an opinion statement? What makes this group notable with respect to Singer in particular? What is the weight of their opinion with respect to all others with opinions on Singer? This is clearly WP:UNDUE unless you can provide some substantiation of the weight of this opinion amongst all such opinions rendered by all such groups, including the skeptics and contrarians. No? --GoRight (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. And given the discussion here and the concept that WP:CCC I see no continuing consensus here for the inclusion of this material in the article. Lacking such consensus it should be removed entirely. If there over was a consensus to include the material at all, I claim that it has evaporated. Please demonstrate a clear consensus for continued inclusion or agree to remove it (after the page is unprotected, of course) due to a lack of consensus. --GoRight (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
And exactly how do you determine that? I count 3 people on one side, and quite a few more on the other.. I'd like to know your basis for claiming "lack of consensus". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice quantification skills. "Quite a few more" obviously establishes consensus over "3". I missed that day in math class, I guess. I bow before the "exactness" of your claim. Oh, and your selective amnesia seems to be kicking in again. I think I lernt WP:NOTDEMOCRACY from you or one of your close associates. --GoRight (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, so consensus is that the minority is correct? Please notice (you may want to reread my comment), that i didn't claim consensus any which way... I asked you to justify you claim on "lack of consensus"m and i still am. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
As you have frequently pointed out to me, consensus does NOT equate to majority rule. We have dissenters here and I claim sufficiently so that we lack a CLEAR consensus for continued inclusion. I would remind you that as the one seeking the INCLUSION of material into the article that you are the one that must demonstrate such a CLEAR consensus for doing so. I am not required to demonstrate a LACK of consensus, you are required to demonstrate the EXISTENCE of one per the policy. I am simply asking you (or anyone else who wants this material included) to do so and, as you say, I am likewise still waiting. --GoRight (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Lets see... "mainstream sources say one thing", hmmmm - that seems to be our weight right there. The "many others" seem (according to that) to be outside the mainstream, and thus things get very clear. (may i ask what the "many others" are? (i'm guessing Op-Ed's, blogs and SPS's - am i right?). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this seems like a stupid questions, but what's the difference between an advocate (one who engages in advocacy) and an activist (one who engages in activism)? -- Atmoz (signed by GoRight).

Not a stupid question at all. I can only offer my opinion on the matter in response. Advocacy denotes a calm reasonable approach whereas activist denotes a clearly extremist and forceful approach. Since they describe themselves as activists, not advocates, I can only assume they are the latter and this is the source of the bias being made in the current text. I note that no one has yet offered up an alternative quote from and actual scientific organization concerning Singer's being a contrarian or a skeptic. Why is that? Do you prefer to rely on politically biased front groups who you have to whitewash into appearing credible? I ask only because that is clearly what is occurring here. --GoRight (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Here, compare advocacy/advocate to activism/activist and decide for yourself. I'm not making up the semantic distinction here. --GoRight (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
[5] click on Mission (I hate sites where they hide information that you can't access with a direct link). They describe themselves as "a nonprofit partnership of scientists and citizens combining rigorous scientific analysis, innovative policy development, and effective citizen advocacy to achieve practical environmental solutions."[emphasis added] I personally don't see a difference, and think this discussion is pretty WP:LAME. I took out the activist part before because I thought it was duplicate to the advocacy part. Not because I think advocacy is a better word than activist for what they do. They're two words that mean almost exactly the same thing. YMMV. And I did consult a dictionary before asking the question. -Atmoz (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Since you are so sure believe that the two terms are exactly equivalent, can I assume that you wouldn't object if we changed advocacy to activist? I mean if they are equivalent and all. And I do offer up an equally credible primary source for activist, do I not? If we could all just agree on this single word change I will be satisfied. I don't like to drag these things out any more than anyone else. --GoRight (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (Updated)
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I was so sure. If I was, I wouldn't have asked the question. But it was pretty insulting for you to imply that I wouldn't even attempt to try to figure it out. And no, I don't particularly care if you call the UCS an advocacy group or an activist group, unless someone can point me to what might be the difference between the two words. My own OR says that both words would accurately describe the group. -Atmoz (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I meant no offense so I have strike the offending phrase as a sign of good faith. That's just what came out when I typed the comment. I didn't put much thought into it either way. --GoRight (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Straw Poll (i.e. a !Vote)

Let us make this easy so we can assess where our little internal group of regulars stands overall.

Should the UCS a quote about Singer being a "climate contrarian" be included in this article at all?

Yes, keep it in:

You could also use the journal article here. -Atmoz (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, and we could also cite it from to Mooney "The republican war on science" page 61, George E Marcus "Paranoia within reason" page 125, Paul & Anne Ehrlich "Betrayal of Science and Reason" page 36, Gelbspan in Robert Chehoski "Critical Perspectives on Climate Disruption" page 17, Newsweek [7], ABC News [8] and numerous others. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (ie. there is nothing strange or new about this, no red flags are being raised) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • --GoRight (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. Editor's don't get to vote to break Wiki policy (even "weakly" breaking it). An ad hominem labeling of someone in a living person biography , however weakly worded, is not allowed. Especially from a special interest group (but that's not the issue here). --John G. Miles (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, take it out:


I don't care either way:


If it is included, what source should be used as the reference? Please express your opinion on the following options (add to the list as you care too).

Union of Concerns Scientists:

  • Unacceptable without including the description "environmental activists". --GoRight (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You mean environmental advocacy group, correct? No need to you the right-wing buzzword here. -Atmoz (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Now be nice. I thought we were making progress here. I'll not snipe back because you feel I sniped first. Let's call it even on that front. Your point is only applicable if you consider the terms equivalent, I do not. I DID actually do some level of checking of the other group's site and I got no sense that they actually ARE activists, unlike the UCS which openly claims that they ARE. --GoRight (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy in Academia:

  • First choice, "nonprofit conservative advocacy group Accuracy in Academia" is an acceptable description. --GoRight (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You mean the conservative activist group, correct? Why don't we use the right-wing buzzword to describe them? -Atmoz (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I am open to other descriptions as well, including removing the conservative label. I didn't complain about it because I assumed SBHB was using it as a mild return snipe and I don't care about the political affiliation either way. I have already indicated that. --GoRight (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't intended as a snipe at all, but instead to point out that he's considered a "climate contrarian" by those on the left, right and center. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, John appears to want our attention. Let's table this for a bit and discuss actual policy first. John, the floor is yours. --GoRight (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your attention, GoRight, I'm interested in an honest and civil discussion. I didn't mean to step on anyone's ego here. I'm a very open person in my real life and that is reflected in my posts. I don't have the time or inclination to expend energy on insults or innuendos proffered by others. And I have already been through the quite lengthy experience of endless arguments (and usually insults from the gallery) on Dr. Singer's page quite some time ago and had to go on to other personal business. I dropped by these many, many months later just out of curiosity.
I simply don't have the time to squat on this article to try to ensure neutrality from petty name-calling by a special interest group (the Union of Concerned Scientists) who has no especial expertise in anything Singer or anything climate as far as that goes as I documented above. The arguments for keeping UCS's "description" of Dr. Singer is so tenuous as to make one wonder why anyone would intellectually embarrass themselves by making the claims I see made and risk the appearance of petty ideological turf battles. It really does resemble the trench warfare of WWI.
A single agreeable standard would circumvent this and all future ideologically programmed endless loops. If a common standard can't be agreed on for such simple NPOV and BLP guidelines as avoiding name-calling, editors with a POV to push will be returning the text into adjectival battleground as soon as this particular UCS "battle" is finished.
I just see it as a futile enterprise unless some real cooperation with editors of different ideological stripes are willing to put aside their political preferences in favor of a real and quality encyclopedic article. Dr. Singer will soon enough be dead and all the vultures waiting in the wings can feel free to swoop in once the BLP restrictions are removed. Hopefully, some remnants of sanity will remain, but I'm under no illusions.
Until then, the biographies of living persons are not meant as a place for opponents of the subject of the biography to pester that individual with as many innuendos and code words as possible (it was nice to see someone remove the "Industrial cooperation" category, for example--and I was actually surprised it happened--we all know what those evil industrialist robber barons are up to and "cooperation" suggests complicity; the editor who inserted it knew exactly what effect he/she wanted to produce).
It also seems that moving on two separate and mutually exclusive tracks is counter-productive. If we really can't agree as good faith editors to hold ourselves to a reasonable standard to encourage cooperation rather than obstreperousness, it would seem a vain hope to imagine the future holding anything different than the past. The non-ideological editors come and go as quickly as the fruitlessness of the effort at neutrality is made apparent. That generally leaves only the ideological standard bearers holding the editorial cannons. The natural process tends towards article integrity entropy. Like all entropy, it is a difficult process to reverse.
I agree. --GoRight (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
We all know how the straw poll is going to turn out given what I believe everyone understands as the tag-teaming that manifests itself here. I have no intentions of personalizing it to any particular individual; I just believe the lengthy history of Singer edits leaves little to the imagination. My time is very limited and I've already over-extended myself. Every moment I spend here is time I can spend much better in the real world where real progress on real issues is possible. I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm just trying to deal with my own personal realities. Glacial progress is best left to editors other than myself.
This poll was merely a response to KDP asking that I demonstrate a lack of consensus since he was unwilling to demonstrate the existence of one. Note that the mere creation of the poll broke the stonewalling and they actually started participating and making suggestions. That effort has now been continued below by Atmoz. My goal is to merely balance and blunt the pointy stick they have created. I choose this route because experience has taught me that it is at least achievable and could be argued to at least move things toward WP:NPOV. Your goal is to get them to agree to not create the pointy stick in the first place. A much more worthy and laudable goal but one that I fear, based on experience, is intractable. Why? Because they don't see it as a pointy stick. You are asking them to admit that they are operating and upholding a double standard when they don't think that they are, so good luck with that.
The purpose of the straw poll was to make them go on record rather than letting them claim some nebulous consensus that is ill-defined. Unless they could then rally the troops (yes I know, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND) to the point where they actually could demonstrate the consensus for inclusion exists, then my point would have been made and my argument about removing it would have prevailed. This is what actually got them moving and making suggestions. I consider that progress, YMMV. None of that would be binding but it would be a nice clean launching point for an RfC, again YMMV.
Unless they compromise to a point where I am satisfied with the text being sufficiently WP:NPOV, I fully intend to create an RfC and simply try to pull in additional opinions since we internally would be at an impasse. In that case let the chips fall where they may. I certainly could be barking up the wrong tree, after all, and if a wider community agree with them then I have to accept that reality. --GoRight (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
If you honestly feel your route is going to be a productive one, you have my blessing to continue and I'd be glad to remove the "Towards a single standard" from view as you have done here (you'd just have to show me how--feel free to do it yourself). To be honest, it would be a relief. I'm just not willing to engage in a debate I don't believe in and have little time for anyway. I prefer consensus building. If it turns out to be a return to partisanship, then I'm glad to bow out of the picture completely and let the tag-teamers have at it. Wikipedia is just getting less relevant to the real world with the POV advocacy that is increasingly being pointed out outside of the Wiki ether.
Give me your absolutely honest opinion as to which path you would honestly prefer to pursue. I'm not interested in deferential treatment simply because I feel strongly about fairness and often express those opinions in my posts. I never express those views out of a feeling of animus towards anyone, but words on a page are sterile things and without all the smiley faces, easy to impugn motives that do not exist. And my contributions to the "Towards a single standard" section would be terse and, perhaps, infrequent anyway. --John G. Miles (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me first apologize for the curt nature of my response above. It was late and I was tired and so you got what you got.
I would be ecstatic if you were able to achieve the goal you have set for yourself. Truly I would. But after a long while watching many of these pages I simply think that your efforts will be wasted. That is not a reason to NOT try, I could be wrong, but any effect that you achieve will be short lived, IMHO, given the nature of the problem. You have hit upon the core issues already in your description above. My personal experience has been that attempting to get people on these pages to apply standards consistently even on a single page, mush less across multiple pages, is a fools errand. That doesn't mean that it isn't a worthy goal, it just means that the reality may be that it is effectively unattainable given the nature of a wiki where people come and go.
From a WP:AGF perspective we have to accept that some of the people who are engaging in what you and I perceive as being a double standard legitimately don't see it that way. They honestly believe that it is acceptable to pile as much ad hominem and other smear like material into the AGW skeptics BLPs as they can get away with while simultaneously arguing strenuously against allowing comparable material into the AGW proponents BLPs. Just go and look at the types of arguments that they use on the AGW proponents pages to keep such material out and then try applying those same arguments here. They will fall on deaf ears. I know. I've tried. They have canned arguments that they trot out for why this is acceptable. Things like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "each point has to be considered in the context of the individual page". These arguments all sound good, of course, but their net effect is to establish the double standard you perceive, and your opponents in the matter firmly believe that they are doing the right thing in doing so.
If you want to make a run up the "let's get rid of the double standard hill", I should support you because that is something that would truly make a difference. Having tried such things in the past, I am skeptical of your success, but by all means give it a shot. Perhaps you will have more luck than I. I'll generally back off of the UCS meme for a while and let you proceed (and yes your topic is wider scope than just the UCS point), offering assistance where I can in the hopes of fostering a better editing environment on these pages.
In the interest of being concise and efficient I have interspersed a couple of additional comments throughout your comment above. --GoRight (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the comments, GoRight. I'm officially declaring the effort dead. It was, as with yours, also an effort to get "thing on the record," but that was entirely secondary to my original stated purpose. I may respond to whatever lingering comments that are placed there if they show any promise, but I'm not going to push it. The lack of constructive comments from The Cavalry speaks for itself. --John G. Miles (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't let this discourage you from your main goal of scouring BLPs for things that need to be removed or balanced. This is important work in and of itself. Take it on as you can, wikipedia should only be a distraction in your everyday life. As you said it's not like there isn't other pressing business. I realize that you don't believe the climate contrarian part belongs at all, but in the grand scheme this is not the biggest fish to fry. Let us find some comprise and move on. What do you think of the thread Atmoz started below? --GoRight (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement, GoRight, but "discouraged" is something I don't use in my vocabulary. My only limiting factor is time (the "real life" thingy). Many of my edits are late at night/early morning (as this one). I'm just not willing to deprive myself of sleep over a long period of time in order to "enforce" fairness. The global warming related articles are particularly pitiable examples of ideological article squatting (and, unfortunately, one of my areas of expertise--the other being economics [go figure]). I also wasn't sure as to exactly which thread by Atmoz you were referring to (very cursory look--it may be more obvious than I've taken the time to observe). --John G. Miles (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Climate contrarian

I suggest changing this:

In 2007 a nonprofit environmental advocacy group,[1] the Union of Concerned Scientists, called Singer a "climate contrarian."[2] Singer has in turn declared that the UCS has "zero credibility as a scientific organization."[2]

to something like this (refs could use some formatting):

Singer has been described as a "climate contrarian" by advocacy groups of differing political perspective, including Accuracy in Academia[3] and the Union of Concerned Scientists,[2] the media,[4][5], and authors of books and journal articles.[6][7][8][9][10]

-Atmoz (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

They all call him a "climate contrarian"? I thought that characterization was only made by the UCS. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I know this journal article does refer to him as a "climate contrarian". I took on good faith that Boris and KDP refs did as well. Looking, the AIA refers to him as a "contrarian climatologist" (close enough for me), Newsweek doesn't mention him at all, ABC Australia refers to him as "contrarian 'experts'" (eh, so so), and I don't have access to the books. -Atmoz (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
A couple of sources from different ends of the spectrum should be sufficient. Creating a "pile on effect" is WP:UNDUE. If any of the groups mentioned are extremists (i.e. activist = extremist whereas advocate != extremist) they should be noted as such. If any of the groups mentioned have a focus on the environment they should be noted as such. If Singer has specifically responded to any of the ones mentioned (i.e. as in the UCS case), his responses should be included as well. --GoRight (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How about just:

Singer has been described as a "climate contrarian" by advocacy groups,[11][2] the media,[12][13], and authors of books and journal articles.[14][15][16][17][18]

and avoid the entire issue of labeling anyone? I could be convinced that this is acceptable. --GoRight (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Although the list of authors refs is a tad long, can you pick two? --GoRight (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You could just group all the refs into one ref. Either separate it with colons or bullet points. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with the above (with or without the ref suggestion by Nish). The books should probably be verified before actual use in a BLP (or re-verified by KDP) just to make sure they actually use the term climate contrarian (or something very close to that). I could possibly do it this weekend, if someone doesn't beat me. (Also noting that if we don't mention the UCS by name, there is no need for "Singer has in turn declared that the UCS has zero credibility as a scientific organization." ) -Atmoz (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
"(Also noting that if we don't mention the UCS by name, there is no need for "Singer has in turn declared that the UCS has zero credibility as a scientific organization." )" - Agreed. --GoRight (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
All the pages in the books i referenced, are available on Google books, or Amazon's similar feature. Except for Mooney, which i had lying around as a library borrow, to verify another article :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I am still wondering why we are trying to keep irrelevant ad hominems in a Wiki article or BLP at all? If this is included, do others get to add their own label-free ad hominems (sourced, of course!). The issue is the label "climate contrarian" itself. Besides being nonsensical (I don't believe Singer is contrary to the climate), it perpetuates the assumption that name-calling is appropriate Wiki content at all. It does sound more neutral. It's just a more neutral way to include the name-calling which is at issue in the first place. Sort of like arguing over whether to keep the stinky fish in the fridge by painting it a nicer color. --John G. Miles (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not an ad hominem. But I don't think it's necessary; the article already shows his opposition to the consensus view. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Setting aside whether or not it is ad hominem, I was just about to comment here on the very point you just made. Took the words right out of my mouth ;). --John G. Miles (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
So does this mean that people are actually agreeable to just removing it altogether? If you are opposed to to simply removing it please speak up. --GoRight (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I assume the silence means assent in this case--can we get the consensus into the article at this point? Given the confusing (at least to me) history [9] of the Fred Singer page protection, who is the admin actually responsible for the freeze, Stephan Schulz or Cbrown1023? Given other discussions I've had, am I wrong to conclude it was Mr. Schulz? --John G. Miles (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    Cbrown1023 "owns" the page protection, Stephan just happened to submit his edit at exactly the same time and did a subsequent cleanup of obvious weirdness. I was juts going to wait for the protection to expire but if you want to proceed quicker contact Cbrown1023. If we removed the UCS quote we should also remove Singer's response, obviously. --GoRight (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I had assumed just that (from the Cbrown freeze template in Fred Singer history), but was dissuaded (incorrectly, I realize now). I had confused Cbrown's comment that he "didn't freeze that one in place" to mean the freeze in general, rather than the serendipitous deletion by Schulz after the freeze had already been imposed. I thought that perhaps the freeze template had been improperly applied to Cbrown somehow. Thanks for helping me clear things up in my own mind.
I'm not in a rush. I just assumed the freeze was indefinite until removal was requested (where does one determine the expiration date?), so I'm fine with waiting. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Click on the protection log button on the template and it takes you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=protect&page=Fred_Singer which tells you how long you have to wait. --BozMo talk 09:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, BozMo. --John G. Miles (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Page protection seems to have expired. If there are any objections to simply removing the UCS quote and Singer's response per the above discussion, please speak up. Silence shall be interpreted as consent on this point. I'll leave the honors to John after a suitable delay to allow others to respond. --GoRight (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I object since it appears to be a significant part of what most people know about him. --BozMo talk 18:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it is what he is known for, as can be seen from the multitude of RS's. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with deleting the whole thing, modifying it per my or GoRight's suggestions above, or keeping it as originally written. My preference would be my edit, then GRs, then delete, then keep as written. -Atmoz (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
If you mean this one [10] it is fine by me. --BozMo talk 07:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I suspected as much which is why I posited the question rather than simply doing the removal.  :)

John, I understand your concerns about including this at all, but unless and until you can get them to agree to removing it entirely, and in consideration of the fact that they DO have WP:RS for the claim, I prefer to focus on simply finding a WP:NPOV means of including it. It can be removed at a later time if you find a way to convince those objecting. (Hint: I wouldn't waste much time trying beyond this point unless you have some new arguments. A next step on that front would obviously be some form of WP:DR to bring in additional outside opinions.)

So, towards that end, I shall so simply reassert my suggestion from above:

Singer has been described as a "climate contrarian" by advocacy groups,[19][2] the media,[20][21], and authors of books and journal articles.[22][23][24][25][26]

Are there objections to using this version (and removing Singer's response to UCS)? If so speak up or your silence will be interpreted as consent. --GoRight (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Add it if you want but don't interpret silence as consent. Interpret silence as silence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I still think using climate contrarian in quotes is misleading, since not all of these references specifically refer to Singer in that manner. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I have made the change. I took the liberty of removing the quotes per NK's comment here. @Boris - Silence undeniably is consent. Don't confuse consent with endorsement. --GoRight (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
As I've posted earlier, I think WP:RS is NOT on the side of those wishing to keep the ad hominem, so I'll decline volunteering to insert this new version of a "Wiki contrarian" ;) POV in the article. KDP has some very unique access to RSs, so perhaps she has some inventive way to make it NPOV.
Likewise, even for opinion pieces from reliable sources (which requires the source of the article itself be reliable, including "authors ... generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject [that would be Dr. Singer] at hand," which the Union of Concerned Scientists is not), those expressing the opinion need to be "attributed in-text." That would be especially true with an ad hominem opinion. It would also address Nishkid64's nit-concern that the nonsensical ad hominem is not universally cited exactly the same way since citing all the sources individually with their preferred ad hom would be required. --John G. Miles (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived Fred Singer Talk Page Material

Someone has evidently archived a great deal of the Fred Singer talk page. Would someone mind putting links to the archived material at the top of the page to make it easily accessible. Inexperienced editors will have no idea that material has been deleted and how to find the talk page's complete history (which is important in documenting consensus, etc.). If I'm being particular obtuse about how to find the archived material (and I don't consider myself that inexperienced), someone please enlighten me. We'd hate to smack of hiding "evidence." --John G. Miles (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was curious as to why the archives started at 3 instead of 1. The mystery is that Atmoz setup MiszaBot here but forgot to reset the counter to 1, an easy oversight to make. So when MiszaBot ran to do the archiving it started with Archive 3. I see that Slashme has moved the archive pages accordingly, thanks S, but this leaves Archive 3 and Archive 4 as unneeded redirects. Can one of our local admins just delete those pages or do we need to do a speedy delete? We may be able to just reset MiszaBot's counter back to 3 but I don't know what happens when it archives to a redirected Archive!  :) --GoRight (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, S has already put up the speedy deletes and fixed the counter! Thanks again. You are too efficient. --GoRight (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for screwing up the counter and forgetting the {{archives}}. Future mistakes are likely, so go ahead and just fix them. -Atmoz (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
No need to apologize. As I noted above it was an easy mistake to make. No harm done. I only brought it up because, like I said, I was curious about the (not really) missing archives and thought others might be as well. Thanks to yourself with some assistance by S things look like they should be automatic at this point. --GoRight (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks all for the fine effort. I can die in peace now ;). --John G. Miles (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ About UCS
  2. ^ a b c d e Scientist Calls Global Warming Theories 'Bunk,' Cites Errors of Logic
  3. ^ "AIA News" (PDF).
  4. ^ [11]
  5. ^ [12]
  6. ^ . doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.008. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); External link in |doi= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  7. ^ Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science, page 61
  8. ^ George E Marcus, "Paranoia within Reason", page 125
  9. ^ Paul and Anne Ehrlich, "Betrayal of Science and Reason", page 36
  10. ^ Gelbspan in Robert Chehoski, "Critical Perspectives on Climate Disruption", page 17
  11. ^ "AIA News" (PDF).
  12. ^ [13]
  13. ^ [14]
  14. ^ . doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.008. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); External link in |doi= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  15. ^ Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science, page 61
  16. ^ George E Marcus, "Paranoia within Reason", page 125
  17. ^ Paul and Anne Ehrlich, "Betrayal of Science and Reason", page 36
  18. ^ Gelbspan in Robert Chehoski, "Critical Perspectives on Climate Disruption", page 17
  19. ^ "AIA News" (PDF).
  20. ^ [15]
  21. ^ [16]
  22. ^ . doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.008. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); External link in |doi= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  23. ^ Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science, page 61
  24. ^ George E Marcus, "Paranoia within Reason", page 125
  25. ^ Paul and Anne Ehrlich, "Betrayal of Science and Reason", page 36
  26. ^ Gelbspan in Robert Chehoski, "Critical Perspectives on Climate Disruption", page 17
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Singer/Archive_3&oldid=1136739498"