Talk:Fred Singer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

ABC source

I was going to move the information in my last edit, however it was already mentioned in the article in an alternate section. I could not see any need for it to be in two locations, on top of the fact that its not linked to the NIPCC or any organization. We do not assume what the source says, simply report it. --I Write Stuff (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, never mind, I restored it, since its so obviously talking about NIPCC. I've removed it from the other place William M. Connolley (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not obvious at all, it seems to me -- I previously removed it from that section because it did not even dawn on me that it was referring to the NIPCC when I read the ABC article. I had to think hard to finally figure out how one (who is very familiar with Singer's work) might come to that conclusion when it was returned to that section, but coincidence does not establish cause and effect or linkage to a specific "report" when only a generic "most recent report" is reported in the ABC News source.

It's not obvious at all, it seems to me -- I previously removed it from that section because it did not even dawn on me that it was referring to the NIPCC when I read the ABC article. I had to think hard to finally figure out how one (who is very familiar with Singer's work) might come to that conclusion when it was returned to that section, but coincidence does not establish cause and effect or linkage to a specific "report" when only a generic "most recent report" is reported in the ABC News source.

I find the following issues with the quote:

• Reference material must be verifiable, especially to layman looking for confirmation, according to Wiki policies. Being "obvious" to a particular editor is not a basis for inclusion--"obvious" is explicitly POV. This article does not verify that it has anything to do with the NIPCC. Singer writes numerous reports on all kinds of subjects frequently and even concurrently.
• This is specifically an effort to "do harm" to Singer's reputation--both the article's entry and even the the material used as its source as well, in clear and direct violation of WP:BLP policy.
• The NIPCC "Summary for Policymakers" (SFP) is not "Singer's report." He is the editor of the Summary, meaning the report represents the collaboration of many other scientists involved in the conference.
• Even if one were to assume that the ABC News article's unspecified report did refer to The NIPCC SFP, the fact that it includes peer reviewed science, just as the IPCC Summary, makes the claim that it was "fabricated" absolutely as ludicrous as to claim the IPCC's SFP was fabricated.
• Claiming Singer is lying ("fabricated") would be an egregious breach of WP:BLP policy, and requires the material be deleted immediately.
• There is no evidence that the unnamed scientists are passing a scientific judgment. Given the peer reviewed science (if they were referring to the NIPCC SFP) makes it clear that the comments that Singer is lying are the opinions of scientists, not scientific opinion.

With the issues above, the entry into Singer's BLP is, if we ignore everything else including it's blatently POV nature, at the very least "poorly sourced." If one has to do mental gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion that ABC's unspecified "report" is specifically the NIPCC panel's Summary for Policymakers, the following is given as the action to be taken according to Wiki's Template:Fact#Contraindications:

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately. Do not tag it; remove it." [bold in original, italics mine]

The WP:BLP policy page states up front that

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons -- whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable -- should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

BLP policy, under its "Sources: Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" clearly states that "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is ... a conjectural interpretation of a source." [emphasis mine] Conjectural interpretation violates Wiki's "original research" policy. Mr Connolley has done just that.

According to Wiki's "Avoiding Harm" policy, entries, especially when not adequately sourced, are subject to the following policy:

"An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm.' " [emphasis in original]

It also violates the "Avoiding Harm" inclusion test as well:

• It has not "appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time;"

• "Unconfirmed allegations may only be included in Wikipedia where they have already been widely publicised by the mainstream news media."

Singer's having lied about or fabricated any report clearly do not meet these criteria.

Finally, the source for the claim that Singer is lying ("fabricated"), is itself a very biased POV piece and violates Wiki's WP:VERIFY policy. Specifically, it does not meet the requirements of Wiki's "Exceptional Claims" verifiability policy:

"Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons...."

I had tried to compromise by simply moving it do a separate and completely appropriate section. I should have, per policy, deleted it from the start. I belatedly do so. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You are abusing BLP for your own ends. Many people have accused Singer of fabricating things, or indeed of lying. The claim is far from exceptional. Thats just his reputation. The source is reliable William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have supported what I have done with explicit and lengthy reference to Wiki policies. I not only make good faith efforts to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia, I take a substantial amount of time to demonstrate it. Furthermore, I requested in my edit comment that if people still disagreed with the deletion after reading the policies that we could take it to WP:BLP/N and you could easily have done so or asked me to do so. As admin, it seems you would be encouraging civil discourse and non-punitive efforts to resolve the situation as I had just proposed, with especial efforts to keep things NPOV -- "[F]abricating...[L]ying.... That's just his reputation" seems to indicate otherwise. Regardless, I'll try to stick with all 5 Wiki "Pillars", including the one to "[b]e bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles." --John G. Miles (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You are confused. We do not claim that Singer fabricated, we report the reliable fact that others claimed this. And, because this looks a bit unclear above, no-one has been able to find a full NIPCC report. As far as I and apparently everyone who has looked can tell, there is only the NIPCC SPM, not a full report (maybe add "yet" to be generous, but I have my doubts). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have supported what I have done with explicit and lengthy reference to Wiki policies - indeed; but long tedious policy-quoting is rarely a good sign and rarely works. Furthermore, I requested in my edit comment that if people still disagreed with the deletion after reading the policies that we could take it to WP:BLP/N - and of course I ignored you. Take your own advice if you like, but don't try to put the onus on the other side, its very impolite. I not only make good faith efforts to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia - and the rest of us don't? Please don't patronise us with this stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"long tedious policy-quoting is rarely a good sign" -- I completely disagree. When it makes clear all the issues present, it makes POV efforts all the more obvious, and it reflects a good faith effort to make it exactly clear where I'm coming from, which is what I'm "working for." But I can see how one might call clear documentation "patronizing" when it makes obvious the untenebility of their own position. Also, I wasn't trying to put the onus on anybody--I was simply making clear that there were avenues for us all to continue the discussion in a civil manner, rather than becoming insulting and punitive in tone. You need to quit reading your own animus into other's comments and taking the "patronizing" view that others need to be obsequious to your preferences. If you don't like the way I write, you'll just have to get used to it. You appear to regard your position as giving you a little fiefdom here, including the right to tell others what they can and cannot say in a discussion. As far as that goes for me, you'll just need to get over it. --John G. Miles (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Where the ABC source should be located

I do not begrudge the fact that Mr. Connolley carries very strong (and, given his comments above, no doubt demeaning) personal views regarding Dr. Singer--strong views are usually held by everyone. It's only when those views make us intolerant of other viewpoints to the point of ignoring Wiki policies (as discussed by me above) and insisting on undermining its NPOV policy by enforcing that viewpoint on a particular article--in this case Dr. Singer's BLP--that it becomes a real problem, especially as an administrator of the BLP of the very person he holds in such low regard.

For the purpose of helping me understand your insistence (Mr. Connolley) that Dr. Singer be deliberately and personally maligned in his BLP, let me simplify things and concentrate only on where the entry in question should be placed in Singer's article. We can then go on to discuss the other issues later.

The policy: Under Wiki's "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" policy, "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is ... a conjectural interpretation of a source." Conjectural interpretation violates Wiki's "original research" policy.

My question: How does the citation itself [1] support placing it under the NIPCC subheading, especially given Wiki's specific policy injunction against conjecturally interpreting such sources (please be specific and refer to the citation's NIPCC reference)? --John G. Miles (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to use titles, get them correct. I've got a doctorate. I suspect Singer is entitled to a courtesy "Prof", if you're feeling courteous. But its better to simply omit them William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'll use titles as I feel they are appropriate. I prefer using the title that indicates the education received, not the teaching position one holds. I'll take your comment seriously when styleguides require it, but my guess is that Dr. Singer prefers "Dr." to "liar" as a term of respect. I certainly see no need to avoid efforts to treat others with respect, though I do see why you might prefer it be omitted in this particular case. And as for your education, I'm not sure if you're seeking congratulations or intimidation. In my own doctoral studies, I came to understand how I had previously made far too great an assumption of the knowledge it seemed to imply was conferred as opposed to the reality that it is still quite a basic and superficial understanding one was left with that only experience and personal research can rectify. And even then, all that is adequate only if one is capable of maintaining the personal honesty and integrity to remain objective and open to other points of view in order to avoid science-as-theology where the science dies as soon as the perpetual skepticism with which current theory is viewed is discarded. It is the only thing that propels further discovery. --John G. Miles (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you please help me understand where your coming from here? I'll repeat my question above for convenience:

How does the citation itself [2] support placing it under the NIPCC subheading, especially given Wiki's specific policy injunction against conjecturally interpreting such sources (please be specific as to how you get to the NIPCC and why it is not conjectural)? --John G. Miles (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unstoppable Singer

We currently quote:

The scientific world had known about the sunspot connection to Earth’s climate for some 400 years. British astronomer William Herschel claimed in 1801 that he could forecast wheat prices by sunspot numbers, because wheat crops were often poor when sunspots (and thus solar activity) were low. Not only did the Maunder minimum (1645-1715) coincide with the coldest period of the Little Ice Age, the Spörer Minimum (1450–1543) aligned with the second-coldest phase of that period.[27][28]

This is a bit weird, in that its not talking about GW. There must be something a bit stronger in the book... "GW is nothing to do with humans its all..." or whatever William M. Connolley (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't an effort to get one's personal viewpoint, as to what a living person's position is, more strongly worded represent an effort to push POV? The entry you cite, moreover, certainly represents Singer's view of what is one (if not the) significant mover of GW. --John G. Miles (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It doesn't. It doesn't say anything about what Singer thinks is causing GW William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I meant that the quote does represent what Singer thinks is a significant mover of GW, not that the quote itself states so. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The para is introduced with Singer has emphasized natural factors over anthropogenic causes to explain global warming. Singer wrote: but it doesn't do that. The para *doesn't* say that sunspots or whatever are causing the current GW. Its also utter b*ll*cks, of course: 400 years ago there were no good climate records, so it wasn't possible to connect them to sunspot numbers (which also weren't recorded until... whenever. I suspect it started around 400 years ago). This page is really far too kind to Singer, who is full of twaddle William M. Connolley (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, you're familiar with proxy reconstruction as a way to research the effects between solar activity (which includes much more than just sunspots as a measure of solar output and coronal mass ejections/solar wind) and climate, just as Mann et al. did for temperature only (or at least tried to do). There are still very interesting peer-reviewed papers coming out and I do take them seriously. But all that's besides the point. I do agree with the fact that the quote was an awkward one, but still wanted to try to understand how POV/NPOV issues are to be handled if anyone cared to explain how the request wasn't a POV approach to editing. Oh, and you'll have to define twaddle for me (just kidding--I already understand how you personally view Singer, but hopefully we can get past that for NPOVs sake). A man with his long history of distinquished positions held, peer-reviewed research published, and other continuing contributions certainly deserves to be presented fairly, and not from a "there-is-no-debate-and-I'm-gonna-prove-even-if-by-defamation-and-insinuation" POV. --John G. Miles (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a far better quote just at the top of the source, so I've swapped that in instead William M. Connolley (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote at the top does relate. It talks about the Little Ice Age, which is part of his theory. The Enlightened Democrat (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hard not to see as disruptive.....

These requests for citations are rather difficult to see as non-disruptive:

Singer has also worked with organizations having some overlapping views, such as the Independent Institute, the American Council on Science and Health, Frontiers of Freedom[3], the Marshall Institute, and the National Center for Policy Analysis.

"worked with" is rather obvious - since you do not get to become a fellow without doing some work for them. Its also rather obvious that they have overlapping views, since they a) make him a fellow or staff b) let him publish on their website. Can we please get real? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I discussed this with with Mr. Schmidt on his talk page and he was okay with it. Feel free to take a peek. If you still have questions, please get back to me and we can discuss it civilly. Seeking adherence to Wiki policies is never disruptive. However, your continual reverts of my (evenhanded, as best as I can try) edits from TW is simply an effort to ensure the article remain outside of WP policies and actually is disruptive. You can always contact me on my talk page to avoid coming to premature conclusions. The citations were requested for claims made that would have required original research otherwise. "Getting real" would be to simply leave efforts alone that seek to stay in compliance, as best as possible, with WP policies, especially as they relate to BLPs. It would also be Wiki-appropriate to assume good faith. --John G. Miles (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AAGF William M. Connolley (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone's efforts "disruptive," without ever contacting them (either in their personal talk page or here) to try to understand why the edits made were made, is not "egregious?" It's late so I'll address KDP's issues below later. --John G. Miles (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would any of us follow the discussions on Mr. Schmidt's talk page? This is the talk page for this article - address the issues here. And frankly by looking at the "discussion" - i can't see that you've discussed those particular citation insertions. If you are going to mark for broken links or incomplete links - then mark that... Not selective places in the text, that is directly contradicted by links that do work. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And to address your comment on BLP. What exactly is problematic with the current version? Is there anything contentious about it? Anything controversial? Is there anything suggested or implied with the paragraph, that might make Singer look bad/less good/better? Is there significant POV implied? If not - then its not an overwhelming BLP problem. Things are not black and white - sentences that are non-controversial do not have to be cited. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please address whatever concerns you have here. So that people can address them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul's Edict

As is his usual practice, Raul has simply reverted my latest edit without any commentary here. The new part is his issuing of threats on my talk page (also sans any discussion of the rationale for his actions) to try and intimidate me, see User_talk:GoRight#Solomon.27s_article_on_the_Singer_article. No explanation. No discussion. Just straight from the first deletion to threats of blocking.

I have posted an extensive examination of the applicability of National Post and Lawrence Solomon to BLPs in general at Talk:William_Connolley#WP:REDFLAG. I am including it here by reference so as to avoid the duplication. If anyone disagrees with that analysis I invite them to actually engage in the discussion thereof rather than trying to assert your POV through pocket vetos. In the absence of explicitly stated dissent, I will continue to be WP:BOLD.

Now, to the specifics of my latest edit. Given its obvious relevancy to the subject of the article, namely Singer, and consistent with the specific criteria for BLP sources at Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources, I propose that we add the following to the article:

In an opinion piece for the National Post, Lawrence Solomon alleges that Singer is "relentlessly smeared" by his critics on his Wikipedia biography.

with the following citation:

Lawrence Solomon (2008-05-03). "The Opinionator". National Post. Retrieved 2008-06-23.

The piece is an Op/Ed that was published in a WP:RS, which specifically means the following:

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

Note that the above text clearly attributes the allegations (opinions) to Solomon, as required, even though the content is not contentious from the point of view of the subject of the article.

And for those who wish to, incorrectly, consider this piece to be from a blog Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources provides:

Some newspapers host interactive 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. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested...").

Errm, well, obviously I'm not going to be neutral on this. It does seems to me that LS's blog posting, which you're using as a source, is an appalling piece of cr*p (and obviously so), and you're only damaging Singer by trying to include it. As an aside, there are two errors in the second sentence, but we're not talking high quality journalism here so I'm not sure thats a major criticism. Singer is only being used in that article as cannon-fodder. The entire piece only serves to make LS look like a fool, and wiki shouldn't be using it as a RS for anything else. As you quote: 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 - LS is *not* a professional, and that piece was clearly not subject to full ed control. So on your own terms, its not acceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) LS is a professional, he is employed by the National Post for his services.

(2) The piece being referenced is a full fledged Op/Ed, not a blog entry as you all keep trying to call it so it sounds less credible and easier to attack (see straw man).

(3) The National Post has an editorial staff ([[4]]) who, presumably, exercise oversight on the Op/Ed section of the paper as is customary.

(4) The "FP Comment" section of the paper's "blog" has a dedicated editor, Terence Corcoran who, I assume, does that things that editors do. From the "FP Comment" description at [5] we find: "Editor Terence Corcoran and contributors Peter Foster, Lawrence Solomon and William Watson have taken the most talked-about page in Canadian business journalism and put it online."

So with all due respect, your assertions don't seem to match the facts in this case. --GoRight (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

External links

I removed two, one was a self published piece and the other was a google search compilation. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Lancaster bit does not have a proper source, so consistent with WP:BLP please do not re-add this unsourced and contentious material. If you can find a reliable source that Lancaster has resumed making these allegations then fine, but in his retraction he explicitly agrees to NOT make these allegations in the future. That raises a WP:REDFLAG for me as to whether the previously cited website is even FROM Lancaster. So again, unless you can substantiate that Lancaster is actually behind these latest allegations I would argue that the material is inappropriate. --GoRight (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am only including the discussion of Lancaster and his subsequent retraction because it was there previously. I have made it as neutral as possible while remaining consistent with the material presented in the source. Personally, I would prefer to remove the reference to Lancaster since we no longer have any substantiation that he has, in fact, resumed the allegations. This makes the Lancaster reference a bit gratuitous, IMHO.

Feel free to remove the sentence discussing Lancaster if you agree, but please leave the Hoover Press reference as it is notable not only because of its topic but because it also relates to attempts by Al Gore to suppress dissenting science. Perhaps I should visit Al Gore's page? --GoRight (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

THIS FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED LANCASTER -- I substantiate here that I have, in fact, resumed the accusations (stronger than allegations) made by me in the early 1990s that Singer had intentionally and strategically hoodwinked Revelle, acting in concert with Balling, Michaels and other well-known contrarians for the intended purpose of diminishing the strength and public effect of Gore's statements on global warming and that I did publish in 2006 the evidentiary documents that prove the truth of my then and current accusations. The web page presenting these documents, which include sworn statements of Singer, myself and Revelle's personal secretary, is signed by me and includes an email address (espi@att.net) that can be used by anyone who wants to verify the source. I withdrew/recanted my retraction in 2006 because (a) Balling and others were continuing to wield the Cosmos article against Gore, and (b) my original retraction had been coerced by a SLAPP suit in 1992-93 (before such suits were made illegal in Massachusetts). At our negotiation, Singer wanted me to say I made a knowingly false statement, but I refused, owing to the fact that my statements had always been true. I paid Singer not a penny, but gave him the word "unwarranted" in order to put an end to the lawsuit and ease my wife's anxiety. I am confident I would have won at trial, but I could not afford the 2-3 year process against two national law firms funded by some big pockets. Singer libels me in his Hoover Press chapter, as he continues to distort the truth about who actually wrote that infamous Cosmos article, Revelle's role in the process, and my role in the whole mess. It is unfair to provide a link to the scandalous Hoover piece without giving the reader direction to the sworn testimony that is part of the court discovery procedure and which Singer conveniently doesn't share with the reader. Understanding the career of S. Fred Singer is incomplete without understanding the behind-the-scenes activities this man used to affect for many years the political tides of the global warming issue -- J. Justin Lancaster -- December 16, 2008; espi@att.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.132.70 (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Feb 9, 2009 -- comment to GoRight, concerning Reliable Source, with regard to External Link to the Hoover Article. --- The Hoover chapter is not WP:RS, whereas the balancing links are RS. The Hoover external link is akin to a web page, being an extremely biased on-line chapter, self-published by Fred Singer with the help of assisting editors at the Hoover Institute. Publications of the Hoover Institute are not academic journal publications. Further, the Hoover chapter contains intentional distortions and half-truths that libel me. Singer's Hoover chapter attacks a straw man, attributing to me allegations that I never made. ((My allegation in the early 90s was that Revelle objected to statements in the Cosmos article Galley Proof and those objections were ignored by Singer in the published piece -- hence "published over his objections." I never alleged or claimed or accused Singer of adding Revelle's name to the paper without Revelle's permission or authorization. I did claim in a private letter, to editors for whom I was asked to provide advice, that Revelle was not an author (i.e., did not contribute to the writing of) to the extent that any reasonable person would believe by virtue of Revelle's name being on the article)). Singer's Hoover chapter is not factually correct on many other key issues, too. However, much more reliable sources can be provided by external link to WP readers, such as Singer's own sworn deposition and Revelle's secretary's sworn affidavit, and these do provide stronger evidence with regard to all key details. These additional sources are not only reliable, they are court-admissable evidence by virtue of being made under oath. The Hoover chapter is not. Wikipedia readers/researchers are not well-served by a biased chapter in the on-line Hoover volume, without having access to more reliable sources on the same issues. Even if WP editors do not want to link to my personal comments in the Cosmos Myth link, there should be provided the direct link to the Singer and Berans deposition and affidavit, and to the ES&T article (published journal article) which shows to the reader that the Cosmos article was only a slight rewrite of an earlier article published by Singer as sole author. It is also important that this WP footnote not repeat Singer's false statements about what my allegations were.

RE IMPORTANCE. I agree with GoRight that this issue is important because goes to whether or not Al Gore was trying to inappropriately suppress publication of a dissenting scientific view, which is the claim of the Hoover chapter. It is important to many Wikipedia readers to have access to the most reliable evidence on this score, for this evidence will show that Revelle predicted at least a 2-3 degree Celsius global warming in this century owing to the CO2 problem, a prediction that supported Al Gore's stance on the issue. Singer's Hoover chapter strongly suggests that Revelle returned comments to drafts, but the stronger evidence shows that Revelle did not participate at all in the drafting prior to the single meeting mentioned by Singer. The evidence shows that Singer went to great lengths to get Revelle's name on an article that contradicted this key prediction on the likely extent of warming, ignoring Revelle's correction in the margin of the Galley Proof with regard to "two to three degrees", which was more than a ten-fold difference from what was published. And history clearly shows that this Cosmos article was then touted by SEPP, Michaels, Balling, Lindzen and others as Revelle's last article, in every instance in association with an attack on Al Gore's credibility, when in fact the Cosmos article was essentially written and published by Singer as sole author more than a year earlier in the ES&T journal. When one truly digs into the evidence in this case, which some of us did earnestly in the early 90s, a very different view comes into focus from that reported by Singer about which parties were playing political games at the expense of scientific truth. ~~ J. Lancaster, 2/9/2009

I have no desire to be pointy here, but you have to understand that (1) we have no way of knowing that you are J. Lancaster, but more importantly (2) even if we did it wouldn't matter from a Wikipedia policy perspective. The links to the home.att.net site are simply unacceptable for use anywhere on Wikipedia, but especially not in a BLP such as this. Singer's side of the story was published by a third party and is WP:V which makes it acceptable for use here. The document itself makes it very clear that this is only Singer's personal account.

I have removed any description/discussion of the content of the Hoover article from this wikipedia article in response to your concerns, but if you want to get the other side of the story included you will have to get it published in a WP:RS as defined by Wikipedia policy. The existing links are, unfortunately, unusable for that purpose. --GoRight (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Fred_Singer_-_Item_2

OK, I have spent more than a reasonable amount of time trying to verify this "Astronomics Magazine" hard-copy reference. I cannot find any reliable substantiation of what Fred Singer might, or might not, have said in this article. Per WP:VERIFY, which reads in part "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." I am one such reader and I have been unable to verify this material. Also per WP:VERIFY, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.". Lest I be accused by certain parties of edit warring on this issue, I remind them of Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material which states "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy."

I am removing the material until a WP:RS AND WP:VERIFY source can be found. --GoRight (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We've had this particular article verified earlier.(check with Raul) There is no requirement that sources need to be online. Check your local library. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See "Moons of Mars" above. Raul may still have the PDF, if you are too lazy to request an interlibrary loan yourself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The 1960 volume of Astronautics (ISSN 0096-669X), published by the now-defunct American Rocket Society, is no longer held by many libraries. You can still find copies at Princeton University and M.I.T. It's not clear that all editors have ready access to interlibrary loans or even know of them. It's also unclear what the fees might be to editors not affiliated with major research institution that subsidize journal article requests. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As seen in Talk:Fred_Singer#Moons_of_Mars above. The verification of this source, has already been done. Perhaps Raul still has the PDF? Has anyone bothered to check? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note that interlibrary loan is potentially necessary for a large number of sources. It also is cheap, at least in my experience (free at my university library, single-digit Euro/DM/$ fees otherwise). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on this subthread should take place at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Fred_Singer_-_Item_2 which, as I indicate there, I had created before seeing KDP's pointer. My purpose was simply to follow the recommended dispute resultion process found in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material.

I will endeavor to verify the link via an interlibrary loan program if I can get access to one. I will accept this as a valid mechanism if it can be independently verified. Oh, and lest you think I am being unfair to you in asking for specific instructions, let me remind you of the extent to which I was being cooperative, [6], when the tables were reversed so to speak. Note also that I didn't call anyone "lazy". --GoRight (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Why is wikipedia being used as a soapbox for this person's obscure beliefs about Martians? There needs to be a secondary source to show this is notable. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't say he believed in Martians - read the big if bit, he was correct - the observations were in error. Vsmith (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with WP:SOAP. Find a secondary ref. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is nothing to do with soap. Why are you removing it? William M. Connolley (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you can't rely on primary source here. This is a BLP issue and is not subject to 3RR. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not: propaganda, an opinion piece, self-promotion, or advertizing, see WP:SOAP. It references an incident from a half century ago wherein Singer supported another's comment regarding possible alien control of Phobos due to observation problems. He recognized the problem that if the observations were correct, then something was weird - he was not promoting a belief in Martians as some seem to want to suggest. And to his credit, the observations were in error. I would say this reflects positively on his reasoning at the time. It is not a suggestion as some commentators want to infer, that he believed in aliens. Just why K objects seems rather obscure - it is not an attack nor a negative comment regarding Singer. Vsmith (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Positive or negative, we're not allowed to dredge through everything someone has ever written and pick and choose certain comments to include in their biography without a secondary source. That's advocacy, a form of soapboxing. If these views are notable, then it should be possible to find such a source. If they aren't notable, they don't belong here. -- Kendrick7^talk 12:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Astronautics Article in Further Reading Section

This reference is clearly worded so as to leave the reader with the impression that Singer believed in martians. Given that this particular reference is already discussed in detail in the body of the article why do we need a POV pushing second reference here, especially in light of the level of effort it apparently requires to obtain a copy of the article in the first place. This second reference is clearly WP:UNDUE even if we accept the validity of the reference above since this whole topic is clearly just trivia with respect to Singer in the first place.

I'm not going to revert it again, but can someone please please just remove the further reading reference and let the content in the body above resolve this issue? I am minimally satisfied with the current description there, [7], although I would obviously still like to see Singer's direct statement on his lack of belief in martians included there. --GoRight (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Did Singer once entertain the possibility that there could be Martians? Yes. And he wasn't alone, several very very intelligent scientists and other people thought that this possibility existed. What is the POV in that? Do you think it was ridiculous at the time? (hint: No).

You can't evaluate scientific opinion or possibilities from 50 or more years ago on the basis of the knowledge that we have today. We are not rewriting history here, because you do not like the way that it sounds today. And since its apparently (you amongst others have made it so) is a contentious fact - more than one reference is needed.

Does Singer believe in Martians today - i frankly doubt that he believed it at the time, but the possibility was there. A question such as the one that Mr. Solomon claims to have asked Singer is irrelevant, and it doesn't answer any questions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You are just being unbelievably stubborn at this point. Is this point contentious or not? You seem to be arguing both sides of that coin. On the one hand you argue that it is NOT contentious so there should be no reason to object to this wording, but on the other you are NOW arguing that it IS contentious and so this reference is somehow needed for balance. An obscure reference in a Further Reading section is needed for balance.

Setting the entire LS discussion aside for the moment, you are perfectly aware that it is common practice to consolidate material into one place in the article and the normal rationale is WP:UNDUE. So regardless of your personal objections to my personal opinions on the subject, why should this reference not be removed because of its obvious redundancy? --GoRight (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on GoRight's behavior at Wikipedia:Requests for Comments/GoRight. Raul654 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Edits

I have removed the extra reference to the Astronautics article in the "Further Reading" section, as I agree with GoRight that it was unnecessary given the coverage in the body of the article and the fact that it was already covered by a reference.

I have also removed the "frequent contributor to NewsMax" claim, since it is unsupported (though, if sources can be supplied I would have no problem adding it back in). And I consolidated the Singer "skepticism" text in the intro to one concise paragraph to avoid the repetition and rambling that existed before. Nothing substantial was removed in that consolidation.

The sole remaining point of contention seems to be Singer's denial of a belief in Martians as recently quoted by Solomon. I see no fundamental problem with including his denial sourced to Solomon, but others have removed it. Is there a specific reason why it should be removed? I'm not entirely convinced it needs to be there, but I see no reason not to include it either. ATren (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

About NewsMax, the only article I could find actually authored by Singer is this. It appears he may have been interviewed a few times by other writers on the site, and he's referenced in many articles, but I agree with your edit. One article != frequent. Jason Patton (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

About the Martians: As explained on my talk page (User talk:Stephan Schulz#Singer_Edits, Solomon builds a straw man and demolishes it. How is that straw man relevant or notable? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In 1960, believing in Martians was not a big deal. But 50 years later, scientific study and pop culture refs (see, e.g. Mars Attacks!) have made the term "Martian" almost comical. Even the person who added it concedes that it's "embarassing", even though it's only really embarassing when you look at it from the context of 2008. (The fact that Connolley insisted that the "embarassing" claim be made more prominent in the article is more to be concerned about, BTW. No editor should be making an effort to embarass ideological opponents - but that's another whole can of worms that I prefer not to open at this time).

So I guess the point is, we have to be careful to word this in a way that's not embarrassing. That's what I've attempted to do. ATren (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

At the signficant risk of causing it to be reverted, I find the latest version ([8]) to be much more acceptable from a WP:NPOV point of view. Thanks for your effort here. --GoRight (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Heritage

How do we know that Singer is jewish? I didn't see anything in the article about it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Categories must be supported in the text. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, someone keeps adding it and it shouldn't be here without supporting text and sources. ATren (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible confusion with another Fred Singer, a Jewish history professor.[[9]]Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am Fred Singer's neice and he was born on September 27th, not October 27th. I have changed it numerous times, but someone keeps changing it back to October. (Veesey (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

20k?

I'm puzzled by [10]. Why is it unsourced? I can read it on the memo William M. Connolley (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You cannot analyse a primary source and use that for justification to source a highly-insulting (to the subject) statement. Because interpretations and analyses vary in this situation, it crosses the line into original research. If you can find multiple references of the highest reliability which analyse that memorandum and come to the same conclusion, I would be happy to readd it with a qualified wording (ie. "the Source I and Source II reported that X" etc.). Daniel (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that reading something is "analysing it". The only concern I have is whether it is conceivable that the note is a forgery. I am amused that he is insulted though: has he said so? Presuming no forgery at least conscience is a good sign. --BozMo talk 09:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

From recollection the term "forgery" or, at least, "misrepresentation" was used on occasion. I tend to support that a primary source isn't good here, given WP:BLP requires immaculate referencing for contentious statements about living people. Daniel (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Cabal rides again

• Murphy's blog complaining that The Cabal is maintaining a bad page over at Global warming, and also complaining that this page is a smear campaign.

--Slashme (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco Industry List

The section on the "Publication on health effects of tobacco" contains the following sentence:

Singer also appeared on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces defending the industry’s views.

which is cites to: "Junking Science to Promote Tobacco" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-02-26.

The reference does make the claim listed on page 1747 of the document which in turn cites the following:

39. APCO Associates Inc. Memorandum from T. Hockaday to Ellen Merlo et al. Re: opinion editorials on indoor air quality and junk science. March 8, 1993. Available at: http://www.pmdocs.com. Document no. 2021178205. Accessed February 26, 2001.

which is available on-line here: Document no. 2021178205.

When one reads the original source document, however, one is NOT presented with "a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces defending the industry’s views." One finds instead a garden variety internal memorandum which states, in part:

As you know, we have been working with Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ), respectively. Attached you will find copies of the junk science and IAQ articles which have been approved by Drs. Singer and Lee.

The current text clearly distorts the true nature of the original source in such a way as to mislead the reader into thinking that that there was some approved tobacco industry list of go to people for op-ed pieces defending the industry's views and Singer was on that list, when clearly the original source supports no such contention.

As a result I consider the existing text to not be WP:NPOV compliant. I would seek either of the following options for correcting this:

1. Simply remove the existing text and its reference.
2. Provide additional qualifying text that makes it clear that the existing text is a mischaracterization of the original source.

What do others think? --GoRight (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that same document cache is an Op-Ed by Fred Singer defending the tobacco industry's view that the EPA hadn't proven a link between second-hand smoke and cancer: Washington Times Op Ed. The industry memo is from 1993, and the Op-Ed from 1996. I don't see a problem, but maybe we can add a sentence and a link to the Op Ed.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. I am not claiming that Singer never wrote such a memo. Clearly he did, here's a link to the exact memo discussed in the article already [11]. The problem is the false claim, or at least the unsubstantiated by the cited reference claim, that there was some sort of an industry approved list of people that they would use to write write op-eds to defend themselves. No such list is described in the original document being used to substantiate the claim. In other words, the claim that such a list existed and that Singer was on it is a lie. A complete fabrication.

Does this document, Document no. 2021178205, describe "a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces defending the industry’s views", or not? I don't see how. This is an internal memo from, apparently, APCO Associates Inc. wherein they are discussing the fact that they were "working with" two people, Singer and Lee, who wrote two op-eds, one on junk science and the other on indoor air quality. How does one company working with two people who each wrote an op-ed (maybe for hire, maybe not) become an industry wide list of approved professional obfuscation op-ed writers? Answer: it doesn't. That's the point. --GoRight (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The American Journal of Public Health is not Wikipedia, which means that they do not by necessity need to reference each contended fact that you figure is in it. What's important here is the reliability of the paper, and whether that reliability has sufficient weight to substantiate the claim. And frankly it does. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not demanding that this be removed, as I indicated. They specifically cited #39 as the justification for their statement, so naturally I assumed that #39 was their best claim to a justification of that statement. But if there is other evidence that can be properly cited which demonstrates that this is a fabrication, or at the least an hyperbolic statement, then that should be added as well. Atren says there are other references that tend to substantiate their claim even though they didn't directly cite them to this statement. If this is the case then I will drop my objection. --GoRight (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that we need to defer to the reliability of the journal. Also, GoRight, I looked at some of the other sources cited in the journal article, and I believe refs 37 and/or 38 may be more descriptive of the so-called "list" they're referring to. I looked it up last night and then my computer crashed :-(, so it's all from memory, but I think ref 38 in that paper describes a US-based groups of friendly scientists that they tried to replicate in Europe, and Singer is mentioned there. I think that plus the journal's own conclusions adds up to a pretty solid claim. The only think I might add is a qualification like "according to a sudy by the American Journal of Public Health..." etc. ATren (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are other references that substantiate that Singer is on such a list, then fine, but they are the one's who used #39 as their citation. I will take a look and come back (but I have other things to do right now). --GoRight (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, here are the relevant citations you mentioned:

37. APCO Associates Inc. Memorandum from T. Hockaday and N. Cohen

to Matt Winokur. Re: thoughts on TASSC Europe. March 25, 1994. Available at: http://www.pmdocs.com. Document no. 2024233595/3602. Accessed February 26, 2001.

38. International Center for a Scientific Ecology. Guidelines for the seminar on linear relationship for risk assessment of low doses of carcinogens. January 1993. Available at: http://www.pmdocs.com. Document no. 2501013825. Accessed February 26, 2001.

and here are links to the associated documents:

• Reference #37: Document no. 2024233595/3602.
• Reference #38: Document no. 2501013825.

Reference #38 is irrelevant to this discussion. Reference #37, however, seems directly pertinent as you suggested.

In reading reference #37 it discusses the establishment of a TASSC-like group in Europe who's purpose is to lobby for the use of sound science in the determination of public policy. Personally, I find nothing particularly nefarious in that. Do you? As such this directly conflicts with the implication that the goal is obfuscation. The goal was not obfuscation, the goal was to insure that sound science was being used in policy decisions.

You have to remember that when these memos were written they had no idea that we would be reading them today, so I think if the intent was to be nefarious it wouldn't have been so well hidden within the context of an internal memorandum.

They also indicate that such a group would be broadly applicable to a wide range of issues other than just Tobacco, i.e. global warming, nuclear waste disposal, diseases and pests in agricultural products for transborder trade, biotechnology, eco-labeling for EC product, and food processing and packaging. This directly conflicts with the characterization of this being "a Tobacco industry list" of presumably paid obfuscators.

Note also that they intended to attract support from scientists aligned with the Heidelberg Appeal which is hardly a Tobacco Industry lobby group.

So, the charge I actually see before me, is that Singer is a member of a group who's purpose is to lobby for the use of sound science. How, exactly, is that nefarious?

I am not necessarily calling for the current text to be removed, but if it remains WP:NPOV seems to demand that some discussion of the contents of these references be made. The existing text is clearly a hyperbolic POV push on the part of its original authors and so the inclusion of additional context is required to keep the encyclopedia WP:NPOV, at least IMHO. Note that this is particularly true if one is to adhere to the spirit of WP:BLP. --GoRight (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a futile line of argumentation. What you should be pursuing instead, would be some way to demonstrate that the source is less than reliable or that its undue weight here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If my sole goal were to have the material deleted, these might viable avenues. But I am tired of constantly fighting with you guys to get material I find to be WP:NPOV removed. It just leaves me open to more (unfounded) accusations of being tendentious and disruptive. So while I won't commit to WP:0RR I can certainly try to live by it's intent and approach. Ergo I did not start by deleting the existing material nor am demanding that it be removed. If you all feel it needs to be here, then fine, let it be here but in a WP:NPOV way. I am only seeking neutrality, not cover-up. I don't even know Singer for goodness sake, I have no vested interest in defending him. Nor am I editing based on a GW topic, BTW, this is Singer's BLP and the topic is Tobacco (as an aside). --GoRight (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GoRight, you are arguing against Wikipedia's fundamental principles here - specifically, you are substituting original research for verifiable material printed by an independent, reliable source. The American Journal of Public Health is a high-impact, respectable, PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed medical journal. An article published therein identifies Singer as part of "a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces defending the industry’s views." You personally may of course agree or disagree with this contention, but your personal argument on the topic will necessarily count for less here than the published, independent, reliable material.

If you genuinely feel that the AJPH article is in error, then the most fruitful approach would be to contact the journal's editors, who have a vested interest in the accuracy of their publication, with your complaint. Alternately, if an equally reliable independent secondary source has argued a different view of Singer's relationship with the tobacco industry, then that could potentially be cited here. But Kim is correct in that the line of argumentation you're pursuing here is futile as it runs contrary to at least 2 of Wikipedia's 3 central content policies. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If I were to read these articles cited from the journal and draw my own conclusions which I then try to put into the article, then I would agree that I am violating WP:OR. If instead I seek to juxtapose the existing language with a purely factual accounting of the contents of the references I am not conducting WP:OR. So, for example, it is factually correct and verifiable that the cited journal article cites these specific references, and simply recounting that reference #37 discusses the formation of a group dedicated to the promotion of sound science that is not WP:OR and it is clearly WP:RS and WP:V.

Give me your honest opinion, being as objective as you can. Is the existing characterization from the journal a fair and accurate representation of the sources that they cite? If not then it seems appropriate to provide the context provided by the cited references to keep that statement WP:NPOV from the perspective of wikipedia. --GoRight (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if I disagreed with the AJPH's characterization of those memos, I would not argue my personal opinion on the subject as the basis for a change to the article content. Using one's editorial interpretation of a primary source to dispute or undermine the conclusions of a reliable secondary source is WP:OR, and that's what you're doing. MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is stating that the journal cited these references WP:OR? Is factually recounting what those sources stated WP:OR? Give me you honest opinion, being as objective as possible, is the existing text from the journal a fair and accurate representation of the content of the underlying sources? Is it a neutral representation thereof? --GoRight (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I made clear which aspect of your argument I view as WP:OR. You ask for my opinion, which is not particularly relevant. Fine. APCO is a PR firm which was hired by Philip Morris to spearhead its efforts to prevent regulation of tobacco. According to the memo, Fred Singer worked closely with this PR firm. The PR firm was engaged to "defend the industry's views", and it worked with Singer to do so. One conceivable inference is that Singer was therefore a source of "op-ed pieces defending the industry’s views". This appears to be the inference drawn by the AJPH article authors. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to respond directly to:

1. Is stating that the journal cited these references WP:OR?
2. Is factually recounting what those sources stated WP:OR?

You seem to not be following what my objection is. As I stated early on, I do not claim that Singer never wrote such articles. Clearly he did. I even provided a link to one. I do not claim that he didn't have any association with APCO. Clearly he did as noted in the references provided. But neither of those was the question on the table.

The question is whether there existed "a Tobacco industry list" of such writers, and whether Singer was on that list. That is precisely what the existing text states. None of your analysis supports that assertion. Where is the list? --GoRight (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I did respond to #1 and #2, by referring you to my several earlier posts in which I explained exactly where the OR comes in. To repeat myself: neither #1 nor #2 are OR. The OR is arguing that your interpretation of the primary sources should supercede that of a third-party, high-quality published reliable source. This discussion has taken a somewhat circular direction, and I've said my piece, so I'll leave it at that. MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GoRight, I don't think we are in a position to be critical of what a reliable source says. If they are reliable (this is peer reviewed and well respected after all) we have to take it at face value. To try to take apart the original sources would be OR or SYN, I think. ATren (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, it seems it won't be worth the battle. I'll drop it. --GoRight (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, earlier versions were much shakier, both in their claims and their sourcing. There was a debate on this text about a month ago where we came to this version, which I think is fair enough. If the journal is wrong (and I'm not convinced they are), then it's up to them to correct or retract it; if and when that happens we can revisit. ATren (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I at least identified the authors and cleaned up the citation and before you get all objectionable about my use of the word "commentary" this is based on the opening paragraph on the left hand side which states:

This commentary discusses the ways the tobacco industry has created controversy about risk assessment and about the scientific evidence of the health hazards of secondhand smoke.

I take "commentary" to be "opinion piece" and per WP:BLP it should be attributed as such. --GoRight (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realized it was a commentary. In that case I support this added text. ATren (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Commentary" in the scientific literature has a different meaning from the common use of the term as a simple opinion piece. I added the words "peer reviewed" before "commentary" so that readers don't confuse it with something like an op-ed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Being peer reviewed doesn't somehow make it not an opinion piece. It is the opinion of the authors, and possibly also that of the hand full of reviewers since they passed it, but opinion it remains. --GoRight (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're driving at here. Everything ever written is "the opinion of the authors" (unless they're writing for hire on someone else's behalf). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? When I write 1 + 1 = 2 is that merely my opinion? When scientists claim that there is a temperature anomoly due to CO2 emissions, your contention is that is merely the author's opinion? I am very glad to here this.  :) --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination

In looking at this particular report of which Singer was the principal reviewer, it seems to address a number of areas other than Tobacco so I am not sure why the Tobacco theme is being given special attention. If we are to discuss this report at all, I would recommend that we cover all of the case studies, not simply the Environmental Tobacco Smoke one as limiting ourselves to just that one would be WP:UNDUE. Here is the citation:

Jeffreys, Kent (1994-08-11). "Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination" (pdf). Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. Retrieved 2008-08-17.

From the introduction we find the following:

Washington, D.C: Today, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution released a research report which found that the science behind the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) risk assessments In four current environmental policy questions is inadequate. "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy : A Critical Examination" critiques the science and economics that form the basis of the EPA's risk assessments and cost-benefit tests for environmental tobacco smoke, radon, pesticides, and hazardous waste clean-up under the Superfund law.

[...]

The report - conducted by the staff of the Institute and reviewed by an academic advisory board of 19 distinguished scientists and economists around the country - found that the EPA's assessment of potential risks to human health and the environment in these four cases was based on faulty scientific analysis and selective use of data . Further, in the instances where the EPA did conduct a cost-benefit analysis, the purported Nbenefits" were greatly overstated. The report found the following:

Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) : The EPA's finding that second-hand smoke is linked to lung cancer is based on a lower threshold of risk assessment than that normally applied by the agency for other substances and activities . In short, the EPA study relied on methodologies different from those which have been historically used in such analyses. In fact, the overwhelming majority of studies conducted on ETS and lung cancer have found no statistically significant Indications of carcinogenicity.

Radon: On the basis of the credible research to date, at extremely high exposure levels, it appears that radon can significantly increase the risk of lung cancer . Yet, like so many other potentially harmful substances, at the lower levels of exposure which are commonly encountered, researchers have a hard time finding any evidence of harm. The EPA carefully and consistently selects data that supports its a priori assumption : that any amount of radon can cause cancer.

Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals : In 1989, the EPA had examined the agricultural chemical known s Alar and determined that scientific evidence with regard to potential cancer risks was In onciusive, at best . But in response to public fears generated by slanted presentations pr vided by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the EPA banned Alar. The costs of t is event were enormous (total losses were estimated at $140 million), the benefits too sr~all to measure, if they existed at all. The EPA's public pronouncements on pestici es should inform the public that naturally-occurring and synthetic pesticides can be uall carcinogenic . Further, the alleged cancer risk from residual pesticides must be eighed against the well-documented anti-cancer benefits from consuming fruits and vegetables.

Superfund : The Superfund hazardous clean-up law exemplifies all that is wrong with American environmenta~ policy: an expensive assault on minor risks resulting In an enormous waste of scarce 4sources . Only by assuming that extremely unlikely - and sometimes physically impos i ible - events will occur in the future is EPA able to create the impression of risk where no actual harm will occur . For example, EPA consistently assumes that future site u~es will include children, who will live there for 70 years, ingesting slightly less than ~ teaspoon of local dirt every day, and relying exclusively on contaminated groundwater for bathing and drinking. Indeed, at least half of the $14 billion the nation has spent on Superfund cleanups was used to comply with similar "dirt-eating" rules.

I think that the current Tobacco section should be re-worked to better represent what was actually addressed in this report. I think the outermost section should be titled "Critique of EPA Science and Economics" and contain a short subsection for each of the areas covered by the report, with the current Tobacco section becoming one of those.

Note that Singer is not the author of the report which was prepared by the staff of the Institute. He was merely a reviewer along with 18 other "distinguished scientists and economists" so it is not clear to me how this is a notable accomplishment of Singer himself. What do others think?

But if we are to include this report as a notable accomplishment of Singer, and I assume that is what we are doing here, the report was not merely arguing against Tobacco issues as this section implies, the report was arguing against the use of invalid science by the EPA based on, among other things, the EPA lowering their confidence intervals when the results didn't fit their preconceived hypotheses. I think a brief summary of the points made in the report make sense within the context of this BLP, as the existing discussion seems rather cherry picked and WP:UNDUE to me.

Also note that the report does not use the term "junk science". The word junk does note even appear in the document. But I accept that the common definition of the term summarizes the point of the report itself.

Am I going to meet lots of edit warring and complaints if I attempt such a reorganization of the tobacco section? --GoRight (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't object to calling it "Publication on health effects of tobacco, radon, pesticides, and toxic contamination," and keep the existing section as is except for the addition of a sentence or two on each of the other three subjects. My impression is that Singer paid a more attention to questioning second-hand smoke than the other issues, so I think it's not undue weight. Also, the criteria for inclusion is "notability" not "notable accomplishment". Brian A Schmidt (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Also, the criteria for inclusion is "notability" not "notable accomplishment"." - I didn't mean anything significant by the use of the word "accomplishment". Even so, you find it notable that Singer was one of a group of 19 scientists and economists to review this paper? OK, as I said I won't argue really, but let us cover it even handedly then. I'll wait a bit before making any changes to see if others have comments up front as well. --GoRight (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Birthday

There's some dispute about Singer's birth month; it was October and IP 131.123.72.146 changed it to September (without evidence or discussion). Tracking down sources clearly independent of Wikipedia is tricky, but this URL is certainly independent and suggests September is correct [12]. Rd232 ^talk 12:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss [13]? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

yes Rd232 ^talk 20:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The article text has said Sept for the last year without alteration. Someone messed up the bio box a while back and people have been defending the error. Had an edit comment been left it would have been easier. --BozMo talk 15:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the biog box was originally added with data contradicting the main article text: [14] I guess it is possible that the editor who added it thought that September was the tenth month. Anyway it has survived since then. --BozMo talk 16:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

well at least it's sorted out now. Rd232 ^talk 20:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated ABC News Claim

I deleted the paragraph citing ABC New's claim that certain unidentified scientists calling Singer's report "Fabricated Nonsense." ABC News will not disclose the identities of these alledged scientists (if they even exist.) This is just unsubstantiated hearsay and doesn't in the article.

William M. Connolley, stop reverting my deletion of ABC New's hearsay. Especially, without an explanation. Do you have evidence that ABC News has disclosed the identities of the alledged scientists? Unsubstantiated hearsay doesn't belong in the article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornbelt888 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, doesn't notable unsubstantiated hearsay belong? We seem to include tonnes or it in articles on the Royal Family etc. :We are not trying to prove something here, just reflect what is reported so I think WMC is probably right. More to the point AFAICT you (i.e. Kornbelt888) have only put this in once and it wasn't deleted by WMC so when you say WMC has repeated deleted your insertion it appears that you have just declared yourself as a sock puppet? --BozMo talk 21:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, unsubstantiated hearsay does not belong here, even from a 'notable' source, unless, perhaps the treatment clearly indicates that it is unsubstantiated and undefined. What is the point of the reference to anyone except an inflammatory propagandist? Just because ABC News says it? How does that inform the article? It's useless information, and it's only intent is to smear unfairly. Not worthy of an encyclopedia.

I don't see why ABC needs to name the people, per BozMo: all we need is that ABC reported it. They are a reliable source for what they say, and probably notable. I'll throw in RC's take for luck William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Because without substantiation the claim is hearsay. And since when is ABC News an unbiased reliable source? That's quite humorous, actually. They get no free pass for defamatory statements such as this without substantiation. Heresay doesn't stand up in a court of law (except under very rare circumstance.) I'm removing it again. Leave it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornbelt888 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How can we WP:V that ABC actually talked to anyone if they refuse to reveal who they purportedly talked to? At a minimum this should be worded as ABC's claim not a statement of fact. --GoRight (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to. Nor should we. That ABC said it is good enough, *if* we believe ABC to be an RS. Suppose they had named someone - lets say GS. Are you suggesting that in that case we could go back and ask GS if he had really said X to ABC? Sounds like OR to me William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Are you suggesting that in that case we could go back and ask GS if he had really said X to ABC? Sounds like OR to me" - I would never suggest such a thing since of course that would be WP:OR. But having the names would enable a search for a secondary WP:RS source to confirm this. Without it no such search is possible. For example, if ABC News claims that GS is someone they talked to and we come across an NBC News article that claims that they didn't this would be notable. Of course this is only a hypothetical, as was your example.

I find it interesting that you consider ABC News reliable for their claims but argue that Singer is not a reliable source for his (e.g. the CV discussion below). You are aware, of course, that a WP:SPS of the subject is considered reliable in a WP:BLP to the extent that it pertains to the subject himself which a CV obviously does. Unsurprisingly, however, you choose to ignore this fact.

You are also no doubt aware that blogs and other WP:SPS such as RealClimate are considered inadquate within a WP:BLP context when they are derogatory to the subject. Again, this is also a fact that you choose to ignore, apparently, since you have just added such a link. --GoRight (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you consider an unsubstantiated statement of hearsay from a (hardly unbiased) news agency to so important? Where is the encyclopedic value in such an entry? "OK, so ABC news claims that. So what? Can they substantiate it?" There is no value, except inflammatory POV. Now, if you want to re-write the paragraph to underscore the fact that A) it's hearsay, and B) ABC will not furnish any names, and C) will not furnish any arguments from the undisclosed scientists, then fine. Knock yourself out. But as it stands, it's just propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornbelt888 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Since ABC is a reliable source, i can't see any reason to suspect their reporting. Its not an Op-Ed, and we have confirmation from RC, that several other scientists agree. RC in this case is a reliable source, since they are addressing their direct expertise: climate change science - see the exceptions to SPS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you know ABC News is reliably reporting this? How do you know they are reliable for claims they make that are unsubstantiated?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornbelt888 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

CVs are not RS

So can we substantiate "Singer has also been a consultant to the House Select Committee on Space, NASA, GAO, NSF, AEC, NRC, DOD (Strategic Defense Initiative), US DOE Nuclear Waste Panel, the US Treasury, and the state governments of Virginia, Alaska, and Pennsylvania, and to various industries including GE, Ford, GM, Exxon, Shell, Sun Oil, Lockheed Martin and IBM.[9]" other than a reference to a CV the guy wrote to get a job? If not any which cannot be substantiated need to go or it has to be worded that he claimed it. --BozMo talk 21:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that the one sourced the the tobacco docs? Then yes I agree: his own bare assertion is thin, especially when he's applying for a job William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS are WP:RS in a WP:BLP as long as they pertain to the subject. Clearly a CV pertains to the subject. --GoRight (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I think that's completely untrue for certain types of information such as individual achievements or capabilities. Date of Birth maybe, self-peacock, no. The rate of fraud in CVs is very high and information which only appears in a self published or self submitted CV is not remotely RS. WP is the kind of place you might go to check if someone notable were lying in their CV. --BozMo talk 21:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a WP:RS that suggests that he is lying, then by all means add a statement to that effect along with a proper reference. Otherwise you are treading into WP:OR. --GoRight (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To quote from WP:V: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [...] so long as: the material used is [...] not unduly self-serving. I think the "unduly self-serving" kills it - this is a CV tat Singer as a lobbyist uses to boast his weight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh. There is nothing unduly self-serving about having a CV. This is common practice. In fact I would suspect that many of the scientists backing the IPCC reports have them as well. If you want to call the man a liar, fine, but you have to find a WP:RS to do it for you otherwise it is clearly WP:OR. --GoRight (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No good argument to believe the CV yet. ""Approximately 75 per cent of all CVs have some form of embellishment and 25 per cent contain outright lies," [15] and a zillion other sources with similar numbers. A self produced CV is by definition is self-serving since that is its purpose. I have no reason to think Singer is a liar but perhaps given the weight of probability you can find some serious evidence that he is different from much of the population. I prefer to discuss first but I can see no reason on this talk page to keep unsusbtantiated stuff from a self published CV? --BozMo talk 07:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I question the use of RealClimate as a source in this context

I note that the following has been introduced into the article:

"RealClimate called it "dishonest" [16]."

To quote from Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources:

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs."

RealClimate is clearly a WP:SPS group blog and as such it seems to be directly and unambiguously covered by this statement. Do others agree or not? --GoRight (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We've been down this road loads of times before. SPS has exceptions, and RC in the capacity of scientist addressing their field of expertise, is one of these exceptions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no substantive difference between referring to the "report" as dishonest and referring to the "author" of the report as dishonest, which is of course the intended effect and exactly what makes this a WP:BLP issue.

I am unclear as to which exception you are claiming. Can you please provide a pointer to the relevant text of the relevant policy? All a review of WP:SPS seemed to turn up related to WP:BLP was the following:

"Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."

Again, that seems fairly direct and unambiguous as well. --GoRight (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the RC reference we find "S. Fred Singer and his merry band of contrarian luminaries ... served up a similarly dishonest 'assessment' of the science ...". That's clearly an attack on the man as well as the report. --GoRight (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

See BLP/N archive for the last time you brought this up. I suggest that you take it that way this time as well. Since you appear to believe that consensus has changed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think if you review that reference I didn't even participate, much less bring it up. The only place I am even mentioned is indirectly through references to a previous discussion, which again I did not originate. I believe that the text of both WP:BLP and WP:SPS were substantially changed subsequent to that prior discussion and in part due specifically to it when it was discussed on the WP:BLP talk page. Those changes directly asserted the points I have quoted above which are clearly much more direct about the inapplicability of WP:SPS in a WP:BLP than was the previous text.

After reading that thread it is quite clear that the consensus was against you in this case. 1) Articles are not dishonest, authors are. 2) Scientific facts are not dishonest, people are. 3) The current text used in this article citing RealClimate as a source is not discussing scientific topics in any way.

I will also note that all references and external links to RealClimate on the William M. Gray BLP appear to have been subsequently removed and not by me. Go figure.

I will probably take this to WP:BLPN if I must, but I'll wait to see what the regulars here have to say first. No need to escalate too soon. --GoRight (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

the author of the report? You're not suggesting that the NIPCC was some kind of sepp-style one-man band are you? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. But the RealClimate blog post you reference explicitly singles Singer out by name (and his is the only name mentioned), why is that if they don't intend to level the accusations of dishonesty directly at him? Also, by your argument here why is this item even listed under Singer at all? Should it not have an article of its own? --GoRight (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor mistake on your part then. You mean, why isn't Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change its own article? You have a short memory [17].Or did you miss all the fun last time? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No mistake on my part. To what are you referring? My memory is doing fine as well, thanks. If you did your research (i.e. a simple search for GoRight in the discussion) you would have known I wasn't involved in that debate.

Reading through the discussion there, I see that at the time you were arguing that this IS the work of Singer. But now that it suits your purpose you appear to be arguing the exact opposite. Interesting. Why the change?

Of course its the work of Singer, I've been arguing that all along. Are you trying to pretend it isn't? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In the end your point is moot. As things stand now the work is being attributed to Singer by virtue of Raul's redirect, WP:BLP is therefore applicable and controlling, and statements made in a WP:SPS blog of anyone other than the subject are therefore clearly and unambiguously forbidden. Let us simply wait and see what some of the other editors think. --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the quote can be attributed to RealClimate; as evidenced by the byline, the article appears to have been written by Dr. Mann and not RealClimate as a group. -Atmoz (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely irrelevant. It is still a WP:SPS blog post which attacks the subject of this WP:BLP. There are no exceptions in either WP:BLP or WP:SPS that allow people to include these types of attacks from these types of sources in a WP:BLP. --GoRight (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no attacks on Singer - sorry. That Singer is a contrarian on this subject, is not even remotely controversial, so that part isn't an attack. As for the rest, its about the report, not the person. And that is where the expertise of Mann and Schmidt lie, and is not covered by BLP concerns (otherwise we'd have to cut every literary criticism from all authors on WP). BLP does not preclude criticism. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"BLP does not preclude criticism." - This is true. But it does preclude allegations of dishonesty on the part of the author/editor of that report in their BLP as cited in a WP:SPS blog entry. The charge of dishonesty is clearly not a statement about a scientific fact and an inanimate object such as the report is neither honest nor dishonest, only its author/editor can be which is what makes this clearly an attack on Singer. --GoRight (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

restructure, rewrite intro, add some details

Just made a coupla changes. Hardly noticeable, really... ;). No, seriously, even if much gets reverted, I think the career section is much better this way. Rd232 ^talk 12:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

also, I think if possible keep footnotes in the intro to a minimum. It should be a summary of the article - the footnotes should be in the article, ideally. Except for direct quotes maybe. Rd232 ^talk 12:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Monbiot stuff concerns me

We are talking about some pretty serious stuff in this article, and this source seems pretty questionable to me for the following reasons: first, it is an editorial, not news reporting, by someone obviously hostile to Singer. And the connection here seems quite tenuous... someone else claims something (what?) and this hostile editorialist claims that it is from Singer (somehow), and that there is no source (but where did Singer make the claim, what did he claim, has he clarified the source elsewhere), etc.

I have left it in for now, trying to soften it to be more careful, but there should be more attention given to this. I have emailed Singer to ask for more information if he has any.--Jimbo Wales 08:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Its properly published in a reputable newspaper (do you mean this [18]? Its not an editorial). What more do you want? Why mail only Singer and not Monbiot too? William M. Connolley 10:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the Monbiot stuff an extract of a book (namely Heat, by George Monbiot, published by Allen Lane)? ► RATEL ◄ 04:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Towards a Single Standard

For clarity's sake, would all editors please leave this initial section I'm adding here free of edits so the points at issue are clear for everyone coming to this section now (or later) to comment on. Feel free to quote the relevant bullets and respond after the horizontal line below.

I promised to begin a separate section to avoid double standards in play throughout the article when it comes to describing organizations, individuals, etc. Instead of taking the time to rewrite work essentially already done, I'm also reposting parts of a response I made to someone elsewhere here (with some edits where appropriate) with the question following being the relevant one we need to answer in this section.

What this section is not about is a continuation of the debate about the UCS issue in particular, but the generalized question it relates to-- how to apply labels/adjectives when including any sourced material . The following is my personal take and is here only to frame the discussion. I'm not interested in debating UCS all over again.

I believe there are several points that argue for removing all labels (e.g., "conservative," "liberal," "activist," "nonprofit," etc.) when inserting sourced information into the Singer (or any) article:

• Labels are unnecessary. The information sources provide is what's at issue.
• Removing labels would actively constrain the article towards maintaining Wiki's NPOV "pillar."
• All labels are, per se, ad hominem in that they (subtly) seek to enhance or degrade the credibility of a favored or disfavored source, respectively.
• Ad hominem name calling doesn't belong in any article. The more anyone argues it is a "weak" ad hominem, 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.
• Adding additional modifiers to the already existing labeling of UCS (as an example) as "a nonprofit environmental advocacy group" should not be an issue if the original labeling is not considered an issue. If you don't like the one, then get rid of the other as the one merely modifies the other! Regardless, the previous points made are the dispositive ones.
• As stated earlier, this simple "standard" would avoid a whole hellofa lot of contention and revert wars regarding the Singer biography.
• This standard would require compromise on all editors' parts (which is usually a good thing when it comes to neutrality).

Here's the question (I'm not looking for a vote, but a discussion--in that sense, consider the question a rhetorical device):

Would you support dropping all labels and other extraneous modifiers preceding all references to an individual, organization, etc., being used as sources in the article (exceptions could be discussed in talk)? Could contributors add more along the lines of a discussion/effort to reach consensus and what compromises you are willing to make or other suggestions that move us down that road?

---

I see I've fallen flat on my face in the intent of the question (my fault). I'm not looking for votes, but for discussion taking all the points together as part of what's being discussed. Each point modifies the other, so it's not about only labels, but their ad hominem implications as well and reasonable "exceptions" that will form a consensus.

One thing this is not about is a new rule. As I explained, it is an attempt to constrain content to current Wiki NPOV and other guidelines, including the imperative for Wikietiquette in pursuing a collegial atmosphere when improving an article.

I may prod within the responses for clarity on what the preference is or if the intent is being misunderstood.

The question has been rephrased. Could the current contributors add more along the lines suggested in the question in its new form? --John G. Miles (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I commend the following Wikipedia article as an example of sourcing without labeling and the resulting neutral tone: Climate change consensus. Notice the virtually complete lack of modifiers preceding the identification of the group or individual to which the information is sourced (even the UCS [discussed in the previous section] is included without modifiers in the article, for example). --John G. Miles (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. As far as I can tell, the UCS is not mentioned in Scientific opinion on climate change at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusion duly noted. I linked to the wrong article and have edited the reference above appropriately. It should have pointed to Climate change consensus. Both are useful examples. --John G. Miles (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight's Thoughts on the Above Bullet Points

Since I have no idea where I am supposed to be typing, I shall attempt to move forward by carving out my own little spot and this looks as good as any. In response to the bullets you have pulled together somewhere above:

Specific Comments:

• "Labels are unnecessary. The information sources provide is what's at issue." - I disagree. The "labels" are necessary to provide contextual information in a summary form.

No contextual information is required if everyone quits trying to out-contextualize other contextualizers. Knowing UCS or any other organization is "nonprofit," for example, is entirely irrelevant to the article itself and only encourages edit wars. I'd love adding appropriate "context" everywhere. It's just that there are years of experience to teach us it doesn't work here. Everyone objects that their context is the best context and refuse to allow it to be altered, and that is the whole point of trying to reach a common understanding, not imposition, of a simple, suitable standard fully in keeping with and, in fact, meant to discipline we editors in to adhering to, Wiki policies and good editing practices. I specifically revised to question and other parts to make it clear that it was the understanding of a simple and easy-to-apply standard, rather than an extensive list of exceptions and exceptions to exceptions that seems to turn everyone into contortionists here when trying to justify their own favored label (of which I gave examples of exactly what I considered labels to be--I don't know how to get more clear than that).

I would also have been glad to rewrite a sample paragraph from the Singer article to illustrate exactly what I meant if the previous listing of labels went over an editor's head. I was trying to accomplish something short, sweet, and clear, not the tangled web for talk that we're again reverting to, per standard talk:Fred Singer form. --John G. Miles (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Removing labels would actively constrain the article towards maintaining Wiki's NPOV "pillar."" - I disagree. Removing the "labels" decreases, not increases, WP:NPOV.

Only if someone else has already insisted on including a POV label. That's the whole point of a simple and easy-to-understand, mutually agreed upon standard (that is in perfect keeping with all other Wiki policies--it is, in fact, a way to constrain the out-of-control mess of the Fred Singer article into a tightly run ship, so to speak. It was meant as a long term tool rather than the current haggle-over-everything system. As I believe I mentioned below, read the Climate change consensus exemplar article provided directly above and tell me how leaving out all the labels (including the one for UCS) increases POV. I don't think it's a tenable argument. Just compare that article with the present one. --John G. Miles (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• "All labels are, per se, ad hominem in that they (subtly) seek to enhance or degrade the credibility of a favored or disfavored source, respectively." - I disagree. Any "label" which provides accurate contextual information is not automatically ad hominem.

Labelling organizations is per se ad hominem, though very subtle and neither good nor bad given their appropriate application. By "ad hominem" I merely mean it is an "argument to (or in favor of/against/"neutral" to) the man (organization)" My point is not a problem with labels per se, but with the fact that in this environment they merely serve to engender endless edits, re-edits, and revert wars as the labels are inserted to imply the 'goodness' or bias (or even alleged neutrality) of the target organization--an argument ad hominem regardless of which form you choose.

It is important to understand that I'm not using "ad hominem" here as a slight, it's a simple description of how labels function. By definition, not denigration, labels are arguments to the man (or organization) in that they are meant to argue a particular status for the organization. I think your looking at the need for labels from a view to ascribing to them, by the very nature of the label being applied, a "good" or "bad" status. If it is completely neutral and true, it doesn't change the fact that it is not in any way essential to the article. It need be neither, but that is not the history of years of edit warring on this site. Read the Climate change consensus exemplar article above and tell me how the lack of labelling of organizations and individuals makes the article more POV. The proposition is quite simple. At least I intended it to be. --John G. Miles (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Ad hominem name calling doesn't belong in any article. The more anyone argues it is a "weak" ad hominem, 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."" - I agree.
• "Adding additional modifiers to the already existing labeling of UCS (as an example) as "a nonprofit environmental advocacy group" should not be an issue if the original labeling is not considered an issue. If you don't like the one, then get rid of the other as the one merely modifies the other! Regardless, the previous points made are the dispositive ones." - I don't know what this is trying to say so I can neither agree nor disagree.

The only modifier in the sentence to the label "nonprofit environmental advocacy group" was the one you want to include: "generally described as liberal" (roughly the quote from memory). --John G. Miles (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• "As stated earlier, this simple "standard" would avoid a whole hellofa lot of contention and revert wars regarding the Singer biography." - I have no idea which part of this is supposed to be the "standard" since this point is in the same list as the rest, therefore I can neither agree nor disagree.
• "This standard would require compromise on all editors' parts (which is usually a good thing when it comes to neutrality)." - Ditto the comment above about what the standard is vs. isn't. Taking the core statement on this bullet in isolation from the rest, I would say that it might possibly be true but I could certainly devise examples where it would not be.

That would have been helpful. I'm looking for contributions, not just criticisms. --John G. Miles (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Editorial Comments:

• You need to make a more clear distinction between "labels" and "modifiers" because to me they currently seem to be indistinguishable even though you seem to dislike "labels" and accept "modifiers".

I believe you misunderstood. See comments above (and below). --John G. Miles (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• You need to clearly identify what "standard" we are even talking about because I have no idea. Is this the standard on using "labels" or "modifiers" or "ad hominems" or "pointy sticks" or "references" or "naming of references" or "modifiers of references" or "WTF ever else".

A label is an adjective. Adjectives are modifiers. Some adjectives or phrases modify others (e.g., your parenthetical "liberal" modifier of UCS as "an environmental advocacy group"). Adjectives always reference a particular noun or pronoun. "WTF ever else" modifies everything else, I guess. I wasn't attempting to be obtuse, I was attempting to be short and to the point so as to avoid the tendency to fragment every point someone makes into a thousand different pieces, making the entire exercise at arriving at a consensus impossible--the pieces, once scattered, can never be pulled together again into a coherent whole. It's a tactic that always works with those trying to obscure a point being made by someone else (not something I'm accusing you of; I've just seen it at work too often by those trying to filibuster an article into maintaining the status quo).

If you had read the Climate change consensus "exemplar article" already referenced above, you would have seen the virtual complete lack of labeling. That's why I thought it a good idea to include it. That's the template I provided as applicable to this article. An easy solution would be to rid the entire article of all labels referring to sources as I made clear in previous posts and then add only those back in that are relevant to the article itslf or essential for avoiding nonsensical introductions of the sources of a particular piece of information--but that's a rarity. Again, the exemplar article provides an example. If you can't find it, I'll point it out. With few exceptions, it is the point the source is making that is of concern. I understand no one likes removing their favorite ideologically-approved labels, but that is the point. Stating a source is "nonprofit" adds nothing to the source's contribution except to say "nonprofit is good"--again, an argument ad hominem and addressed previously.

Perhaps a healthy exercise would have been to rewrite it yourself to see if I could comment on how well it represented my intentions here. We could then have adopted your clearer rewrite. And I'm not being flippant. It just seems we're back to the criticism without constructivism stage again. --John G. Miles (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• You need to clearly define the scope your standard addresses. Does it apply to this page? The entire article? All BLPs? What?

My point was not to impose "my" standard, but to develop an understanding of an agreeable one with contributions from everyone and to apply it in a very limited sense to this particular article. After all, talk:Fred Singer is the subject here. But the standard is merely a restatement of good Wiki editorial guidelines and was meant to be messaged into something everyone could agree on. I'm used to reading and writing in scientific journal/magazine-article-speak in those give and take forums--a force of habit that I have no particular inclination to change. It sometimes requires more careful reading, and I think others who commented below had the jist. I merely tried to correct any misunderstandings that might have been suggested by the remarks. It seemed to be a good working format. There's just too many egos here to contend with. I honestly wasn't trying to establish a turf war and I've decided my best work is spent applied elsewhere. It's just the nature of the Wiki beast that, except for an occasional remark (famous last words), I'll leave the heavy lifting for others. Just don't have the time to do what I'm now doing. --John G. Miles (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think this whole section needs to be refactored so that we don't have this "discussion" occurring above the previous "discussion" found below below and people typing at random looking places. To that end please feel free to move, remove, fairly restate, combine as needed, or anything else you wish to do with my comments in the section titled "Towards a Single Standard".

I just assumed the ==Discussion== category created clarified where the discussion would take place. Too much work for me to spend time editing others' edits--I hardly have time for my own. --John G. Miles (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

General Comments:

• I only have some vague sense of what you are trying to achieve with this.

The "exemplar article" was given to make the goal clear. Read it and note the lack of virtually any labels. It doesn't detract anything from the article--it enhances its neutrality. I don't think I could be more clear as to the tone I'm trying to reach consensus on. And specific questions would help me answer your concerns. But again, I agree with you--this section is just going to spin out of control as all the others. I'm honest when I say take the liberty to eliminate it in the appropriate manner. You seem more knowledgeable about how to go about these things than I do. --John G. Miles (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that we should not be using double standards.
• I would be happy to work to eliminate double standards where we can.
• Please refactor this entire section or simply wipe it clean and start all over. In its current form I cannot follow anything.

At this point I agree. I think it is a fruitless effort. I give you permision and encouragement to wipe it clean. See my above response to your "John wants attention" post for clarity on my feelings here. Any other information I've commented on in your post is only for your benefit to see what I was trying to accomplish. But I agree with you, it's already spiraling way out of control. It was an attempt to not smear a discussion into a thousand fragmented pieces. --John G. Miles (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please turn off all the gratuitous bolding of what looks like your opening comments to this "sub-section?" as it makes it all bleed together with the previous bit that we aren't supposed to be touching.

Just delete the whole section, GoRight. I'm serious. I've spent too much time as it is on fractured squabbling over small points without any constructive suggestions to follow them up. I'm not angry. I'm not offended. I just realize the this effort is destined to fail. Just wanted to give it the good 'ol college try. --John G. Miles (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• If I understand your "standard" correctly, using the above UCS as an example we should be saying that "The Union of Concerned Scientists called Singer a 'climate contrarian.'" and nothing more. IS that correct? I think that the reader is left with a biased understanding as a result. How would your "standard" propose that we convey the inherent nature of the group in this case without "labeling" them?

I already addressed this in my previous response to your comment (and others') below, but I'll repeat it again--that it is not a "new" rule imposed in the place of other Wiki policies, and Wiki policies reject the use of ad hominem descriptions, especially by special interest/nonnotable source and especially in BLPs. It's an attempt to seek a way to constrain everyone, voluntarily by consensus, to live by them. The "exemplar article" given above shows exactly what the goal is I'm trying to reach. Likewise, the proposed "standard" is the sum of the whole, not the individual bullet points.

One simple strategy that would result from a consensus on labelling: One could propose removing all labels and modifiers to those labels, such as the "liberal" one you are attempting in good faith to add to the UCS already-existing quote. Only labels essential to the context of the article itself would be discussed and included. Remember, I'm only speaking of trying to label the sources of article commentary. Again, it's the commentary itself that is relevant to the article. Please read the Climate change consensus article for a comprehensive look at what is possible. I think you'll find the few exceptions as absolutely necessary to the article. --John G. Miles (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Discussion

• No I'm new here, but I think any such absolute rule banning material which may be good for the project is a bad idea. We can stick to wikipedia policy, thanks. Verbal chat 11:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an attempt at an "absolute" rule. It's an attempt to stick to Wikipedia policy. What modifications would you suggest? --John G. Miles (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That we stick to WP:RS, stay on topic, and observe WP:BLP. Verbal chat 08:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So what does that mean to you? Are you agreeable to removing all ad hominem commentary. All special interest group sourcing? Does that mean you agree that "label-posturing" is best removed from all article entries? I believe both of those would move the ball on your WP:RS and WP:BLP goals. "Working towards agreement" sits smack-dab in the middle of "on topic." It's one of the Pillars of the Wiki project. --John G. Miles (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• No I don't think this article should have special rules, there are already perfectly good policies. --BozMo talk 11:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not intended as a special rule. I've tried to modify the question to reflect that. It's an attempt to establish a guideline that will help us constrain ourselves to follow Wiki's already perfectly good policies. See the exemplar article mentioned above to see what my intent for this consensus would be. --John G. Miles (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• No Readers should be presented with a short description of the organization or person for understanding and clarity. Without it, how else will the reader understand why the opinion of an organization/person matters? Labels like "science advocacy group" do that; they provide simple, neutral descriptors of the organization being used as a source. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

See the examples in the exemplar article mentioned above to see what I mean (I edited the question to make it more clear). The Union of Concerned Scientists is mentioned with absolutely no label whatsoever. --John G. Miles (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also important to point out: it is not a UCS ad hominem labeling of someone else. --John G. Miles (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to Nishkid64 - I have no problem using "science advocacy group" when that actually IS a neutral descriptor of the organization being used as a source. But if the group is already known to be (a) not a group of (only) scientists as they name suggests, and (b) to have an "activist environmental agenda" which they don't even both to hide then I am sorry but allowing the use of "science advocacy group" is, itself, a biased description. The weight the reader will assign to the "climate contrarian" label is significantly different if the reader is told that the accusation is being leveled by a group of "concerned scientists" as they now are, as opposed to when the group is accurately characterized as being "environmental activists". This should be obvious. It is also why there is opposition to introducing a truly accurate description of the group. --GoRight (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the very type of back and forth I think the suggested "rule" would avoid. It doesn't replace any other Wiki rules, it seeks to implement them. More in your comment below. --John G. Miles (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I appreciate your intent to achieve fairness here and sometimes that seems to be lacking on these BLPs. But if I were to apply this standard to the very example that has brought us here, we would presumably be left with the "Union of Concerned Scientists" calling Singer a "climate contrarian". And while I don't even disagree with the label being applied to Singer, as he is properly called a skeptic/contrarian, I fundamentally disagree with the biased implication that results since the group leveling the charge is accurately described as "environmental activists" and that when that label is applied the underlying implication is significantly mediated, thus demonstrating the bias. If a truly scientific organization has come out and called Singer a skeptic or a contrarian, well why not use THAT instead of UCS. If on the other hand no such organization HAS leveled the charge does that not once again bring us back to the biased nature of UCS? --GoRight (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  I think you'll find that Wiki policy already dictates the removal of ad hominem name-calling, especially in BLPs. That's why I don't think this is a valid objection. All Wiki policies are still in play. --John G. Miles (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  I missed the entire discussion above over semantics, but what about using "science and politics advocacy group" or saying that the UCS is a "controversial science advocacy group"? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Sources? Especially for the "controverisal" claim? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  I'm going by the lengthy criticism section at Union of Concerned Scientists. There is some politically-motivated criticism there, but it's still criticism nonetheless. Given the group's logo, maybe "environmental advocacy" is appropriate. Thoughts? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Singer, Falwell, and right-wing think tanks - by that definition, every organization is controversial, including the National Academy of Science. It's also WP:SYN, going from individual criticism to "controversial". "Science and politics advocacy group" is reasonable, but we should still have a decent source for that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  That shouldn't be too hard to find, since the organization itself was founded to analyze government policies related to science and technology. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  I believe that would define almost every special interest group in Washington D.C. (am I being too U.S.-centric?). It's good to see we're setting the bar high. --John G. Miles (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)