Talk:Heaven and Earth (book)/Archive 3

Problems in article lede & Background section

Article lede

I copyedited paragraph 2 to read

The book has received both positive reviews from journalists and criticism from scientists.

which I thought to be more neutral than the former

The book received positive reviews from the conservative press, but much criticism from scientists.

But that's the problem. We need to state things the way they are. In an article on flat earth theory, we do not paint a NPOV picture that allows readers to assume that the earth may be flat. See above, where 97%+ of climatologists think AGW is real. And as far as "positive reviews in the conservative press", that is not only demonstrably true, it's also cited in the article. Stop making these anti-consensus changes without discussing here first, please. Posting that you've done something is not the same as seeking consensus. ► RATEL ◄ 05:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality is about presenting the facts. It is not about changing the facts to present a misleading picture of balance. In this case, it's a straightforward fact that positive reviews of the book have appeared primarily in conservative-leaning publications; saying it's received "positive reviews from journalists" is weasel wording, as it doesn't answer the key question of which journalists. When it comes to attributing views, we need to be specific about who holds those views. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The positive reviews are almost entirely or entirely limited to one side of the political spectrum. This was established by the source originally used to cite the statement. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see the note below re the "Conservative press" citation, which has been improperly used -- as have been other "conservative" political tags, such as for The Spectator (uncited, and contradicted at The Spectator#Policy positions), and The Daily Mail -- the latter cited to a 45 year-old article in an obscure Oregon newspaper! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Come off it - anyone who is familiar with the UK media market would find it laughable to assert that The Spectator and The Daily Mail are not conservative publications. The Mail in particular is the epitome of a British conservative newspaper - it's more Tory than the Tories. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

WP is intended for a worldwide audience, many of whom won't be familiar with individual countries' newspapers. And all assertions must be supported with verifiable cites. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to "It produced a highly polarised response from reviewers, with members of the conservative press[14] praising the book and many scientists criticising it." This is a more accurate description of what the source states. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Background section

I cleaned up the first paragraph, eliminating needless detail about the publisher, adding an URL to a cite and a wikilink. Note that all the publisher information is simply copied from the publisher's wikipage -- there's no need to repeat it here. Editor Ratel reverted the entire edit, commenting "Remove relentlessly POV-driven edits." Here's the comparison between my edits and Ratel's revert. You may judge for yourself the "relentless POV" in adding an URL, a wikilink, and trimming redundant clutter. I apologize to other editors for cluttering the Talk page with this sort of minutiae, but it's very frustrating to make good-faith efforts to improve the page, and have same reverted for no apparent reason other than (I suppose) personal animosity. This isn't helping the project. Ratel, if you have specific objections to my edits, please discuss them here. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The description of the publisher, added by ChrisO, whom you thanked and praised for his effort, is not only accurate, but gives a good idea of the sort of publisher we are dealing with and explains the background of the book. That's why it's in the background section. Now why would you think that because you find these details "needless", they should be removed? You continue to try to sanitise your side of the debate by fiddling with the text to add or remove emphasis to suit your POV. Everything you don't like is "redundant clutter". You're not "improving" the page, you're giving it slant. You're not helping the project, you're trying to make a fringe theory held by a tiny number of (usually retired) scientists appear valid and mainstream, in direct and flagrant contravention of wikipedia's rules! ► RATEL ◄ 05:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The background of the publisher is indeed relevant; it comes not from the publisher's website but from the cited newspaper article about Plimer's book. The reporter obviously regarded it as relevant and it is just as relevant for us to note that the publisher does not have a history of publishing books on science. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are the first two lines at our article on Connor Court Publishing:

Connor Court Publishing is an Australian a husband-and-wife publishing company based in Ballan, Victoria. The company has a history of publishing books on "culture, justice and religion", including many books on Christianity and Catholicism in particular.

Note that the second sentence is identical to this section of our article, Heaven_and_Earth_(book)#Background. Why would we want to repeat this here, word for word? And why do we need so much detail on another book published by Connor Court? This article is about Plimer's book, not about his publisher. I shortened this in hope of helping our readers to get to the basics, without overwhelming them with detail. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that concern, but it's misplaced here. As I said before, it's highly relevant to this article that the publisher does not have a record of publishing books on science. I note that Plimer's manuscript was rejected by publishers who do have a history of publishing popular science books. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I can see how this can be construed as an attempt to present the publisher as a Christian conservative climate change denialist, I think the information bears relevance, since it goes to the entire story of how Plimer finally found a publisher for his book. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Media reaction from India

I added a short mention and quote from this column re Plimer's book, from a recent issue of the Business Standard, a respected daily newspaper in India. Ratel promptly removed it, commenting "You are ignoring the rules about Fringe theories by giving weight to minor newspaper reports and allowing wp to become a validation for a fringe theory."

Here is my proposed addition: (following The Globe and Mail quote, Media reactions):

And in India, the Business Standard's Lakshman Menon wrote that "if it kickstarts an honest debate about climate change, Heaven And Earth will have performed an important service." [Source: "Realism over alarmism", Business Standard, New Delhi, August 06, 2009]

In all Wikipedia articles on subjects of international interest, we try by policy to provide worldwide coverage, to avoid geographic bias. This is (IB) the first press coverage of Plimer's book in India. The Business Standard is the "second largest of six financial dailies in India. It has a reputation for reliable reporting and responsible journalism." -- from Business Standard. In my view, Menon's column clearly merits a brief mention in our article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as you make note that it's a book review in the "Leisure" section of a financial newspaper (not straight news reporting), it's perfectly appropriate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing to do with India. Lakshman MENON works for Emirates Bank in the UK, makes anti-Labor comments on blogs, and is a part-time freelance writer on issues dear to conservatives. Removed. [1] [2] ► RATEL ◄ 00:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Menon isn't mentioned in our article; your comments appear, well, odd. You don't think expats can write for their home-country newspaper? Reworded & restored: 2:1 consensus. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are not going to get away with claiming this is an Indian opinion. He's a conservative Brit banker and freelance journalist who has sold an article to the Business Standard. The way you phrase it, it sounds like an Indian newspaper is pro Plimer's book, and it aint so. I ask for other editors to comment on this before I remove it or radically rephrase it to make its author's status clear. ► RATEL ◄ 04:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tillman, SBHB said that the Menon sentence was okay for inclusion "as long as you make note that it's a book review in the "Leisure" section of a financial newspaper (not straight news reporting)". This does not go hand in hand with your argument, nor does it at all validate the version you tried to pawn off as consensus. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added this info, plus Ratel's info re the author, to the footnote for this line. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In the article text please. And presumably is a weasel word methinks. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just remove it entirely? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So is that 3 for removal, 1 against? Any other opinions? ► RATEL ◄ 00:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I count two for removal, one against. SBHB and Kim did not say that they'd prefer outright removal, as far as I know. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked SBHB to comment on footnote vs. text for the supplemental info. No consensus for removal that I see. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Improper synthesis in Dayton para, Media reactions

Editor Ratel recently added this line to this section (second to last paragraph):

Dayton criticised Plimer's "shaky assumptions" and "misinformation", describing his assertion that the IPCC's scientists "whip up scary agenda-driven scenarios" to ensure continued funding, and his claims that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers has been underpinned by fraud, as "fanciful". -- challenged line in italics.

This appears to be a WP:synthesis of different parts of Dayton's column. What she actually wrote was:

Plimer's claim that a few like-minded scientists whip up scary agenda-driven scenarios is fanciful.

and, separately:

In Heaven and Earth he writes: "At times the Summary for Policymakers has been underpinned by fraud, undetected by environmental agitators, journalists or the public."

Obvious synthesis. Nowhere does Dayton describe her quote of Plimer as fanciful.

Ratel, please note (again) that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." --WP:V --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs here. She actually described his entire thesis as fanciful and the fraud allegation as "codswallop". I'll rephrase it to stop this edit warring over trivia. ► RATEL ◄ 02:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not our job to interpret what Dayton may or may not have been thinking. If you want to do that, go write a blog or something. I've reworded the section to more accurately represent what Dayton had in fact stated. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Offhand comment

I haven't done an official count but it wouldn't be surprising to find that one or two people had broken 3RR lately, and perhaps on more than one occasion. Let's dial it back a notch, eh? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought of that, but then I was too lazy to sort through this complicated mess. Guys, just use some common sense here. If you think the other side might have an issue with your edit, it's best to discuss first on the talk page. If these warnings fall on deaf ears, I will have no choice but to recommend either blocks or page protection to an uninvolved administrator. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone ahead and asked for page protection. Let's keep the discussion civil on this talk page, ya hear? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Robot archive

Could someone please turn off the talk-archive robot for the duration of the block? Otherwise, most of the current topics will be archived prematurely.

In any case, a 4-day archive setting seems too short. In my case, I am periodically offline for several days, doing fieldwork. A 7 or 10-day archiving "sweep" would seem a better choice. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You can do that yourself, though I just took care of it. 4 days is way too short. I changed it to 14 days (because I like the word "fortnight"... fortnight, fortnight, fortnight). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't (until now) know how. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Conservative press" citation incorrectly applied

At present, our article asserts:

The book received positive reviews from the conservative press... (Article lede)

...with members of the conservative press praising the book... (Reception and criticism lede)

Plimer's book has received "glowing endorsements in the conservative press" according to Adam Morton of The Age. (Media reactions lede).

This is the only citation given for this series of assertions, from a column published here on May 2, 2009, shortly after Plimer's book was published. Here's the above quote in context: His book has received glowing endorsements in the conservative press and been embraced by some [Australian] federal MPs. Queensland Nationals senators Barnaby Joyce and Ron Boswell offered to launch it. Clearly Morton's comment applies only to the Australian press, and then only to "glowing endorsements" published prior to May 2, 2009. So we have a problem of overgeneralizing a citation out of context, and to articles published after Morton's column appeared. Unless a better cite can be provided, these assertions are WP:original research, and must be cut or qualified. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We say that in the article because it is correct. By and large, the only newspapers to praise the book have been on the conservative side of politics. See WP:SPADE. It would not be NPOV of we omitted that. We'd be lying to the readership, leading them to believe that he has received praise from all sides. He hasn't, in the main. I think there is one exception —forgotten his name— but that's it. Now the only reason you'd want readers to think that the book had received praise from all side was if you were pushing a pro-book agenda, right, Tillman? ► RATEL ◄ 06:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, your constant sniping and incivility is tiresome. Please behave per WP:Civil. You may believe your assertion is correct, but (as for any other assertion in Wikipedia), you must support it with relevant citations from reliable sources. Unfortunately, this is not presently the case. Tagged for proper cites (again). --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Tillman, your assertion is itself original research. The author does not qualify his statement to limit it only to the Australian press and, as Ratel has said, it is true of the non-Australian press coverage as well. It would be original research to alter or qualify the statement as you apparently wish, as that would not reflect what the source says. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Morton's column ran in The Age (an Australian newspaper) on 5-2-2009. In the cites used for this article, the only press mentions of Plimer's book (that we cite) that were published prior to 5-2-09 -- obviously, these are the only ones he could have read prior to writing his column -- were in Australian newspapers. All of the press cites outside Australia were published after this date, so Morton's comment obviously can't apply to them. I'm sure you aren't arguing that Morton's comment could apply to articles published after his column was published? Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Silly argument here. There is, in fact, no need to cite the statement about the positive reception from the conservative press, per SPADE. The glowing tributes come from the conservatives, plain and simple. It's there for all to see. We are simply summarising article content by stating the obvious. This is not OR, it is lede-style summarising for those who want an overview. ► RATEL ◄ 00:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

IB you need to reread WP:Verifiabilty: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." You can't make unsupported assertions -- this is bedrock WP policy. And you can't make a problem go away by removing the tags. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ratel, please stop removing the WP:OR tags for the improper use of the Morton cite. To repeat, you can't generalize Morton's comment to articles published AFTER his. This problem won't go away by trying to hide it. Please provide a valid cite for your assertion. Tags restored. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Tillman, stop tagging The Spectator's conservative descriptor. The wikipedia page on The Spectator makes it plain that it is conservative, so we may use that appellation here without sourcing it. ► RATEL ◄ 00:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read The Spectator article lede: "Its principal subject area is politics, about which it generally takes a conservative editorial line, although regular contributors such as Rod Liddle and Martin Bright write from a left-wing perspective." You are (once again) introducing OR/SYN. Yes, you need a cite: WP:V. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? The Spectator is a well-known conservative publication in the UK. The editors and owners usually end up in the Tory party. Everyone in the UK knows this as I did when I lived there. The existence of a few pet liberal commentators on the staff does not change the essentially conservative nature of the publication. No cite needed. You are editing tendentiously, this being a good example. I would ask you to stop your daily adjustments of the page to further your conservative POV. ► RATEL ◄ 01:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Everyone in the UK knows this." If so, please supply a proper citation, per WP:V. And cease your WP:personal attacks, which appear to be part of a pattern of hostility on your part: "A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered WP:disruptive editing". Perhaps it's time you took a break? --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll provide a cite for the Spectator's conservative nature from [3], but I doubt it'll stop your style of confrontational editing and tagging on this issue. ► RATEL ◄ 04:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Political labels

This increasingly-silly argument illustrates the almost-insurmountable problems of trying to label each writer and publication as "conservative", "left-wing" etc. etc. -- as I have previously argued here (archived Talk page). People and publications seldom can be accurately described by a one-word tag. This is unproductive, unencyclopedic, and will continue to waste time and effort better spent elsewhere. I urge that we declare a moratorium on one-word political labels for this article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Global warming is an extremely political issue. Your attempts to remove the political nature of the debate from the page is damaging the verity and usefulness of the page and harming the Project. If a quoted commentator works for a clearly partisan publication, or has been characterised as partisan him/herself by others, this can be used, since it places his/her comments in context. Absolutely encyclopedic! So let's declare a moratorium on your POV-driven daily edits that are tending to reduce the scope and quality of the page. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 02:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

" your POV-driven daily edits that are tending to reduce the scope and quality of the page." Ratel, you don't seem to get it. This is yet another of your almost-daily violations of fundamental Wikipedia policies for editors: WP:assume good faith, WP:NPA and WP:civility. One more violation, and I will commence a formal grievance procedure against you. CEASE & DESIST. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• There may even be a shortage of political labels. Both Miranda Devine and Paul Sheehan are presented as representatives of traditionally center-left news organs, whereas both are known as conservative commentators, particularly Devine, who is on the Editorial Advisory Board of the conservative Quadrant (magazine). This should be part of their descriptions, rather than (as currently) the newspapers for which they currently write. ► RATEL ◄ 14:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As requested, I added such a label ("left-wing journalist") to Monbiot, from the Christian Science Monitor: "George Monbiot, a left-wing author and journalist, is an outspoken critic of US foreign policy ."

Editor KD Petersen reverted, commenting "1st should be in the article text, and the 2nd is a misleading edit-summary - and goes too far! (POV)". Kim, I'm confused -- what exactly are you objecting to re the CSM cite? I'll grant you, this isn't the exact label Ratel was hoping for.... <GG> Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The right-wing CSM isn't the best source to label Monbiot. Try something more neutral? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Please see WP:POINT. Your "<GG>" indicates that you should take another look at that text. Your "outspoken critic of US foreign policy" goes directly against earlier discussions.. (you only have to look further back in talk-history), its one thing to specify what his origin in politics is, it is another to "slur" him, what exactly does US foreign policy have to do with this article? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Outspoken critic" isn't in our article, but simply quoted from the CSM's header, for context. I'll pull it from the quote in the footnote, as unneeded. It's hardly controversial that Monbiot is a leftist, and I don't recall the CSM as being particularly right-wing. Our article describes the paper as "known for avoiding sensationalism, producing a "distinctive brand of nonhysterical journalism". Please note that the article cited is NOT an opinion-piece -- rather, it is the lead-in to an interview published in the newspaper. CSM is a WP:RS, so I'm unsure of what the problem is with using them to document Monbiot's well-known politics. We can hardly stop at just labeling the "Right-wing" people, for NPOV. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point here, what does "critic of US foreign policy" have to do with this article? As stated it is one thing to mention that he is on the left, and is an environmentalist. Can you explain to me exactly what the relevance of that tidbit is? Does US foreign policy influence the books views? Or his views on the book? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

To repeat, there is no mention of anything but "left-wing journalist" in the (former) article, cited to the CSM bit quoted above. You reverted this edit minutes later 10:50, 10 August 2009 KimDabelsteinPetersen . --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

David Karoly's funding and political activism

I've reverted this. What exactly does funding of someone's research have to do here? And please keep original research such as the last bit about Morton out, what does this have to do with anything? Is Morton's text somehow to be seen in another light for this? I'm confused. As for the denial link, well that is another discussion that should be brought up. Several of our references directly link Plimers book to climate change denial (in text, and with the specific wording) , so it is not far-fetched nor is it (imho) POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"What exactly does funding of someone's research have to do here?" - I cannot believe that you actually asked that question. Shall I repeat the question in any number of other articles where Exxon funding is alleged and repeated ad nauseum? --GoRight (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim, please have a look at this upthread. I'm trying to clarify use of the cite of Morton's column, which has been improperly generalized. Your suggestions on the best way to handle this are welcome. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As for Karoly's funding, adding "and the recipient of A$1.9 million in research grants for climate change studies" suggests he has a large financial stake in continued govt funding of his research, which is (per this Australian Senate document, see p.6) for "Improving understanding of climate change and its impacts in Australia through detection and attribution of climate change." If you like, we can quote this in the footnote. Karoly has also been politically active in seeking CO2 emissions limits for Australia [4], so perhaps this should also be mentioned. The point is, Karoly is not a disinterested observer, and the reader needs to know this to be able to judge the possible influences on his criticisms of Plimer. Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How exactly does Karoly have a "financial stake"? Is Australia somehow different that the rest of the world with regards to what scientific funding is? As far as i know Karoly doesn't see a penny (or whatever funny coins you have down under) of that, nor is his job or anything else dependent on it. Your entire comment here is complete original research and your insertion of this information in the article is a school-example of synthesis. Your assertion that Karoly "is not a disinterested observer" is POV, as simple as that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's blatant original research by synthesis, clearly POV and quite possibly a BLP violation. It's like making a claim in this article that Plimer's connections with the mining industry make him "not a disinterested observer" - a claim which, needless to say, I'd resist just as strongly. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think this is OR/SYN, but I can see a developing consensus against use of his funding info here. Perhaps this would be more appropriate on his wikipage, as it's certainly reliably-sourced.

Instead, I'll substitute his political involvement, noting here that Karoly & Plimer are on opposite sides of this issue. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Err? What exactly is Karoly's "political involvement"? (and where is it documented?) And what relevance does it have? And what btw. is Plimer's "political involvement"? Are you saying that this is party-politics? If so - then you must have some very good references to show it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's what he's trying to show here. The article has essentially boiled down to a political labeling. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Which, please note, I have argued against since Ratel began his campaign to label almost every one of Plimer's defenders as "right wing" (etc.). Although, in specific cases like this, pointing out specific interests: Karoly's generous govt. funding (see p.6), his attempt to influence government policy re the ETF scheme, forex [5] (many more can be supplied) -- do seem to be germane. As I mentioned above, Karoly has interests to protect here. He would (imo) be adversely affected, were AGW found to be not much of a threat. NOTE: I'm not proposing to add any of my interpretation to the article, just giving background. Pace Kim & Chris with your OR/SYN -- this is the talk page.

But I really don't see that simply labeling people and publications as left or right-wing helps our readers much. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you define "generous"? What is the usual funding for scientists in the position that Karoly is in? Is there anything strange about the funding? When Karoly is stating that the proposed CO2 reductions aren't enough - are you saying that is a political position, as opposed to a scientific opinion? Aren't scientists in general supposed to give exactly such advice/recommedations/comments? Again what is strange here?

You seem btw. to have missed my point on scientific funding: A scientist does not draw his pay from research funding - which seems to be your gist ("specific interest"), nor will he be out of work if there is no funding.

As a last point: When reliable sources state a specific thing (mostly conservative), then it is something that we must consider with regards to the article. And as you well know - it is not a "label", it is the verifiable fact that the positive comments have come singularily from conservative sources (and its something that at least one source in the article points out, and another explores). Which of the references does so with regards to the scientists (ie. claims that the scientists are on a specific political "side"?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Tillman's edits straw poll

I believe editor Tillman's work here is so biased and so POV-driven that he has lost perspective. The latest example is the tagging of numerous sections of the page as OR or unverifiable to an absurd extent, even tagging the statement that Prof. Brook has often debated AGW with Plimer (their offices are only meters apart and a quick check of google shows they have debated the issue extensively). He's also opposed things that are clearly true, such as the See also links to climate controversy pages. Note that he continues to oppose the characterisation of the book's supporters as "conservative" although this is patently obvious from the page's own content. All this denotes a complete lack of neutral perspective on this issue. Also apparent are his obsessive daily edits to the page, all of which are aimed at subtly denouncing the scientists who have criticised the book's fringe thesis, or trying to sanitise the page of any data that shows the author or his conservative claque in a less than favorable light. I think we need a show of hands here to get a measure of whether Tillman's edits are constructive or not. If the vote is that they tend not to be constructive, he should seek consensus here on this page before making any further changes to the page. ► RATEL ◄ 03:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Opposed to Tillman's edits

• Strongly opposed His edits are so biased and POV-driven that they are degrading the quality of the page. He must seek consensus here before making any further changes to the page. ► RATEL ◄ 03:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For Tillman's edits

• Well, I'm in favor of my own edits, unsurprisingly. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

If the goal here was to be inflammatory, consider yourself a success. I think this straw poll is utterly pointless. Although I've seen a number of violations of WP:SYN, WP:POV, and WP:OR in Tillman's edits, there seems to be some issues with Ratel's edits as well. A few examples: Misleading edit summary, a belief that since one other editor (me) had supported his position, it now constitutes "consensus", synthesis, and a troubling history of edit warring and unnecessary accusations over the last few days. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit I have risen to the bait provided by Tillman. I am acutely aware that this book, with its dangerous (to my mind) fringe message that panders to Big Oil, Big Coal, other polluters and the rightwing generally, is about to be —or has actually been— released for sale in the US and UK. The importance of this page to the book's reception and sales may be behind the obsessive editing we are seeing here. Many book reviewers will read this page before penning their opinions. This is known, not guesswork. Now when an editor makes it his job to riddle the page with tags, even tagging inconsequential facts such as that Brook and Plimer have often debated the issue (if you really need that cited, try [6] where we read "Just above Plimer’s own basement office at the University of Adelaide is more salubrious accommodation of Barry Brook, who sits in the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change. They argue, they disagree, and they are equally stimulated by the other’s debate.") then you need to ask if an editor should be allowed to continue this sort of termiting of the article's validity, or be strongly opposed. Tillman has 3RRed the page a few times without having his knuckles rapped, seems to me, despite admins monitoring the page. So yes, one of my edit summaries was lazy and I also reversed some text as well as fixing the citation, but no, what you call SYN was simply loose phrasing and did not change the essential nature of what Dayton said. So is the straw poll pointless, or should we all let Tillman spend an hour or so a day turning the page into Swiss cheese, full of tags and POV, so as to further a clear agenda related to a fringe theory promulgated by the book, namely that climate change awareness is a "religion" and that the IPCC is not scientific but fraudulent? You choose. ► RATEL ◄ 04:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"I believe editor Tillman's work here is so biased and so POV-driven...."

"....should we all let Tillman spend an hour or so a day turning the page into Swiss cheese, full of tags and POV, so as to further a clear agenda related to a fringe theory"...."

"....fringe message that panders to Big Oil, Big Coal, other polluters and the rightwing generally...."

(All quotes from editor Ratel, above.)

Ratel, you seriously need a break. Please spend some time studying WP:assume good faith,WP:civility, WP:No personal attacks , WP:etiquette and WP:ownership.

I won't mind a break from this also, and rather regret getting involved. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Frankly, I'm getting fed up with both editors. Ratel is being unnecessarily aggressive, and Tillman's editing is frankly tendentious. I think it would not be a bad idea if both editors were to take a break from this article; I see from their contributions that Tillman in particular has done almost nothing other than edit this article or the talk page over the past month, which looks to me very much like a single-purpose pattern of contributions. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I unfortunately have to agree. Both editors are too aggressive. If we are at a point where "rising to the bait" is an issue, then one should disengage for a while. I agree on the tendentious nature of Tillman's edits, but unfortunately have to say that Ratel's at times come to the same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• If Kim and Chris feel I should take a breather, I'll certainly do that. Back in a week then; hopefully the other editor involved moves on in the interim. ► RATEL ◄ 12:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• I've not been looking at this article much lately because I dislike editing in environments dominated by extremists, which frankly I believe the two of you are. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I regret that some of my fellow-editors here find fault with my work on this page. I don't claim to be perfect, but I'm (almost) always polite, civil, and (imo) a model of restraint, compared to editor Ratel. I strongly disagree that asking for citations for uncited assertions constitutes "tendentious editing".

As many of the editors here appear to sympathize with Ratel's views on this topic, I request that you privately counsel him on WP:etiquette. He doesn't appear to understand the consequences of his pattern of repeated, flagrant breaches of basic rules of the project. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose that you could benefit from similar counsel yourself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Request undo of improper mass-reversion

Moot discussion collapsed

Proposal for action as specified at Template:Editprotected. This page requires a consensus for an edit to a protected page. I hereby request an undo of an improper mass-reversion of a series of my edits a short time before this page was protected. Editor Ratel made this improper mass-reversion at 20:25, 10 August 2009, commenting: " No longer believe Tillman is editing in good faith. Tendentious edits reversed pending consensus discussion in Talk." Editor Ratel then posted a grossly inappropriate and inflammatory comment on this talk page, here The edits in question may be seen here: they are the 7 edits immediately preceding Ratel's mass-revert. In time order, these edits are 19:30, 10 August 2009: restore OR tag at "Conservative press", improperly deleted by editor Ratel. 19:33, 10 August 2009: restore the newspaper this quote actually came from, changed to ? by Ratel. 19:38, 10 August 2009: restore quote from Business Standard, improperly deleted, active discussion & no consensus to delete. 19:41, 10 August 2009: restore NPOV tag at "See also" section, unresolved, active discussion. 19:44, 10 August 2009: deleted uncited assertion "conservative broadsheet" added by editor Ratel; The Australian characterizes paper as "centre-right". 19:59, 10 August 2009: another OR tag improperly deleted by Ratel: active discussion. 20:02, 10 August 2009: change and wikilink uncited description of Family First Party to socially conservative, the description given at that wikipage. None of these individual edits should be controversial, and the mass-reversion was improperly done, as the comment " No longer believe Tillman is editing in good faith. Tendentious edits reversed... " clearly indicates (WP:AGF). Thanks for your help, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Object. Some of those edits are certainly controversial. A protected page will always end up at what some think are the wrong version - we now have the time to discuss each (thats what protection is there for). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Strangely, I agree with KDP here. Don't worry about it, it shall all be sorted out in the end. --GoRight (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC) The whole point of page protection was to resolve each issue on the talk page to prevent future edit wars. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Extending protection

Based on the requests above, I will extend protection of this article until August 16th. I do, however, expect a LOT more work on resolving issues, and a lot less arguing over who's misbehaving the worst. This talk page should only be for discussing the article itself. If there are concerns about user behaviour, take it to WP:ANI or other appropriate noticeboard, and I expect that there will be little leniency shown if there is continued misbehaviour (which could include bad faith allegations).

I also note the request for edits above, and deny that request; discuss those proposed changes on this talk page and come to consensus, please. Risker (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Finding consensus

I was hoping the opposing editor would graciously take a wikibreak from this article, but since he resiled from that, I'll have to return prematurely to defend my actions and try to find consensus on proposed future edits. The remaining issues, it seems to me, are:

Tagging cited material as OR or Unverifiable

The tagging seems to be connected to anything that implies the topic is political rather than scientific. I have contended, strongly, that this is an extremely political topic, with the Australian Emissions Trading Scheme under current discussion in Australia (it's even in today's headlines). The timing of publication makes is obvious that this Australian book was written to influence this debate, and hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake. So the tagging, which is apparently aimed at making the topic seem purely scientific, is wrong-headed and should be resisted. ► RATEL ◄ 04:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Political stance attribution

It is not OR or SYN to observe that every journalist, every single one (even the one I thought was an exception turns out to be widely regarded as conservative), is from the Right side of the political spectrum. As Adam Morton of The Age noted for the Australian context —since this is an Australian book— the conservatives are the ones praising the book, and the center + left are being critical. We have no place, as editors, removing this fact from the article. We all know that there is immense opposition from many big industries to the whole concept of AGW because of the money at stake. There is a concerted effort, perhaps even a vast right-wing conspiracy , to discredit the science and delay any action on the issue. The whole situation parallels what happened with Big Tobacco: the disinformation, the paid shills who try to sow "reasonable" doubt, the obfuscation etc. (Tillman, I am not accusing you of editing here for payment, BTW). It is disingenuous and indeed dishonest of us to try to erase this aspect from the article. I have not heard any cogent argument for removal of descriptors that make the quoted commentators' political stances explicit. Indeed, to do so would make the article opaque to reason and portray a chaotic and confused media response, rather than the carefully orchestrated one that exists. ► RATEL ◄ 04:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor issues

"Indian" quote from British freelance journalist

I'm not averse to including this quote, but we need to say something about the author, rather than create the impression that this is the Indian view on the matter. ► RATEL ◄ 04:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a cite that he's a British citizen, rather than an expatriate?

I would also note that, regardless of author, the piece was bought/approved by Indian editor(s) and published in India. That said, it's fine by me to make a comment re the author's residence, though I feel that's footnote material. Hopefully, we won't have footnotes on footnotes... <G>. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So how do you propose we phrase this sentence? I'm thinking we should avoid starting with "In India...", since that gives the impression that this is a general Indian view, and instead go with "India's Business Standard". Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That suits me -- Pete Tillman (talk)

Family First Party

Quoth Tillman: "change description of Family First Party to socially conservative, the description given at that wikipage." Let's also note that we have RS for more acute descriptions, such as that Family First have an "ultra-conservative evangelical Christian support base"[7]. However I'll trade you this point, Tillman, if you undertake to stop tagging the article and trying to remove the politics from what is an essentially political and only partially scientific topic. ► RATEL ◄ 04:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Australian

Quoth Tillman: "deleted uncited assertion conservative broadsheet". The Australian is openly acknowledged as conservative, even on its wiki page. I do not need to cite that. Please note that on its wikipage, we also have this:

The Australian has run many articles critical of the science and, more particularly, the politics of climate change. The international climate change commentary website RealClimate awarded The Australian an award for "Most consistently wrong media outlet" and the paper's editor-in-chief, Mitchell, won the 2009 Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association's award for "Media Excellence for leading the newspaper's coverage of climate change policy".

This rather puts the paper's position in perspective. ► RATEL ◄ 04:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Australian's politics is being actively discussed here, above. Better to move your comments there, to try to keep topics in one place. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Answers to GoRight

• I have left a note on GoRight's talk page about his use of the "wall of text" technique, beloved of user Abd, on this page (the "wall of text" is a form of verbal intimidation that attempts to overwhelm other editors with screeds of verbose argument when a few words would do). I've asked him to desist. Now addressing his (poor) points:

1. The lede — The sentence summarising the article is not SYN or OR. It notes, accurately and properly, that the criticism is from scientists and the praise is from the conservative press. This is the correct function of the lede, summarising the content of the article as it stands. Your objection has no grounds.
2. Morton quote — You ask if the quote has been "cherry picked". One could use that meaningless sort of objection to every cited fact on wikipedia, so that is not worth consideration. You also attempt to abuse the "undue weight" chestnut on this one too, and even sprinkle a little magic WP:SYN dust on it to make it disappear. All in all a pretty transparent attempt to remove perfectly valid material on the grounds of contrived arguments. Fail.
3. Conservative broadsheet — This is sheer tendentious misuse of the Talk page. To claim that it is OR to call a paper something it is known to be and is even called on its wiki page is frivolous, time wasting, and arguing-for-the-sake-of-arguing. There are hundreds of cites for calling The Australian a conservative broadsheet, e.g. [8], and to say that using that accurate description in this article is "OR" is such an obvious hand waving exercise that it makes one discount all your other objections. If you tried this sort of thing in a court of law, you be charged with vexatious litigation and fined. The same must be said of your objection to the mention of Quadrant. ► RATEL ◄ 00:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with point 3. What a waste of time... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 00:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"... his use of the "wall of text" technique, beloved of user Abd, on this page (the "wall of text" is a form of verbal intimidation ..." - I'll simply repeat my edit summary from my talk page reply, pfft, and add guffaw. Neither are my posts "walls of text" nor are they particularly intimidating, unless you consider requests to conform to community practices with respect to WP:OR to be intimidating. Despite the fact they you seem to find them intimidating, I seriously doubt that anyone else does and most especially not KDP. Oh, and speaking of off-topic discussions, why don't you practice what KDP has been preaching in that regard as well as User:Risker.

"The sentence summarising the article is not SYN or OR." - This remains to be seen.

"You ask if the quote has been 'cherry picked'." - No, this is a directly relevant question. This article must fairly and accurately reflect the article it is quoting from, taken as a whole. Your small, cherry picked quotation does not reflect the substance of the article it has been pulled from. That is the very definition of "cherry picking". That particular point was selected out of the article to push a particular POV, which is BTW, the most common reason for cherry picking.

"This is sheer tendentious misuse of the Talk page." - Please take that opinion over to KDP at Lindzen because the argument being made is exactly the same.

Lastly, if you wish to respond to my points please have the common courtesy to do so within the proper sections rather than attempting to distract others from them. --GoRight (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You repeatedly make the charge of "cherry-picking". Now cherry picking is defined as "the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position." Now if this is actually what I am doing, IOW saying that only conservatives are praising the book and ignoring the non-conservatives praising the book, you should have no trouble at all in citing the people I am deliberately overlooking in my cherry picking. Please supply the overlooked sources. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 02:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to not grasp the concept that pulling a 6 word phrase from the middle of some article just to make a POV statement when that 6 word phrase is NOT representative of the content of the article taken as a whole IS cherry picking. The simple fact of the matter is that the primary focus or theme of the article written by Morton was NOT that the book received "glowing endorsements in the conservative press". This was merely a phrase made in passing within the article that you have set upon for your own purposes. That's cherry picking. YMMV, obviously, but hopefully this clears up my perspective on that particular source and how it has been used within this article. --GoRight (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So from that answer I can see that 1) you are not interpreting the term cherry picking correctly, since that is not the meaning of the term (see wikilink), and moreover there is no rule anywhere that states that editors must only cite from sources if the cite is representative of the entire source (I mean, where are you getting this shit?) and 2) you have no (nada, zip) non-conservative commentators who praised Plimer to support your argument. In other words, you're wasting everyone's time. ► RATEL ◄ 05:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

New sources in "conservative press" debate

Right wing commentators hold [Heaven and Earth] up as the definitive rebuttal of environmental doomsayers [9]

Yet another source that ensures that SYN and OR cannot be applied to the article's linking of conservatism and support for Plimer's book.

The release of Heaven and Earth by climate warming-sceptic, Ian Plimer, is not the giant conspiracy that some are suggesting. But it is a cute insight into the way conservative commentators are starved for shreds of evidence to support their theories and how a small backroom publisher can easily satisfy their needs....It seems that the entire conservative community has been eagerly awaiting its arrival.....The conservatives have ... new evidence to fuel their skepticism.[10]

Ian Plimer says:

The Greens and Labor seems to have a great deal of influence over the media in Australia, as they are very sympathetic to the views of the Left and just prefer to ignore the science and dissent.My talk with Prof. Ian Plimer

Widely seen as a political issue:

"Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury," Plimer asserts, arguing that some people he has met in rural Turkey and Iran have no time for this science nonsense. Real working-class people want to improve their lives by burning more fossil fuels. They must not be held back by hateful rich left-wingers who envy rich people and are rich, seeking to impose their fanciful notions of environmental aesthetics enviously on the poor. (NB: I am not caricaturing that argument in the slightest -- read it yourself and see.)The Spectator Is Hot for Global Warming Denial

...and so it goes on.

• I really urge all editors working on this article to see this interview with Plimer. It sheds a lot of light on our discussions here and may help us to come to consensus. Plimer spends "a lot of time with politicians" (his words). ► RATEL ◄ 02:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Crikey.com.au? environmentalmanagementnews.net? northern-truth.com? Are these serious sources? Oren0 (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Crikey.com.au — have a look at Crikey and report back.
2. environmentalmanagementnews.net — part of http://www.wme.com.au : Australia's largest environmental business publisher. Completely RS for the comment quoted.
3. northern-truth.com — Blog run by a retired conservative politician and journalist, not a RS, but not used here as a source for anything other than to illustrate a point from the horse's mouth, which is that Plimer sees the "Left" as his enemy, in his own words, so saying that the topic is not political is nonsense.

Hope this helps. ► RATEL ◄ 08:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This positions the debate into one defined by politics. Political labels should be used, when appropriate. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My attention has been drawn to this article ...

To borrow a phrase from a well recognized administrator.  :)

Since the page is currently protected I'll take the opportunity to adopt a WP:0RR approach to improving the content of this particular article. I plan to review the article and create subsections for each of my concerns so that we might discuss them in a focused and convenient manner. I shall be adding to these subsections over time rather than attempt a single humongous blast. Please bear with me.

The Lead

"The book received positive reviews from the conservative press, but much criticism from scientists. Critics have argued that it is unscientific, inaccurate, based on obsolete research, and internally inconsistent."

Personally I find this statement to be generally not lead worthy on a number of counts: WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and to some level WP:SYN although that might be justified given the content of the rest of the article which I am still in the process of digesting. I would suggest that it either be removed as the material is covered in more detail below, or that it be scrubbed of any WP:SYN and made somewhat more balanced by including some summary of the positive reviews to counter the negative ones already included.

Any general thoughts from others on these points? I can propose an alternative here, unless there is no objection to simply removing it, after I have digested the remainder of the article. --GoRight (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't gotten to it, see "Conservative press" citation, above, which documents that the only citation for this assertion (currently made 3 times in our article) is a column written before all but (ims) 4 or 5 of the press reactions cited here. Perhaps this columnist had precognition. At any rate, the assertion is still here because a group of (ims) 3 editors sincerely believe this to be true, although (so far) no cite supporting their belief has been supplied for the bulk of the press reactions quoted/cited here. Blatant WP:OR for everything published after the cite.

Incidentally, I'd be happy to abide by a "zero revert rule". Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is very much correct. All the cites we have from media that are positive are from the conservative press, and all the scientists that have commented on the book have been arguing that the book is inaccurate etc. (with possible caveats of single lone voices in each category). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be correct, you may not. I still need to review things. But if the sentence is to remain it must be WP:SYN free as I am sure you would agree, and it must be balanced. Currently it only summarizes the negatives, to be WP:NPOV it should likewise include a summary of the positives. This is all at first glance, mind you. --GoRight (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow. Are you saying the article as a whole is biased towards covering the negatives, while not covering the positives? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Media Reactions

For no particular reason I feel like starting here. Let us walk through each sentence and each source one by one to see where people actually stand.

Subpoint 1

"Plimer's book has received "glowing endorsements in the conservative press" according to Adam Morton of The Age."

Adam Morton. "The sceptic's shadow of doubt". The Age. Retrieved 2009-07-24.

I have some concerns about this sentence. Clearly the quote appears within the source, but does it accurately reflect the main thrust of the source, or has it been cherry picked? After reading the source I don't believe that a reasonable case can be made that the main point of the piece was that the book received "glowing endorsements in the conservative press". The source goes into much detail on many subjects and this appears to have been a remark simply made in passing. Therefore I believe that this particular quote is being given WP:UNDUE weight even when judged relative to the rest of the material within the source itself. Does anyone disagree?

Until we walk through each of the remaining sources, we can't really say much about the weight being given to this statement relative to the other sources. However, unless a significant proportion of those sources also make a similar point about the endorsements being made by a "conservative press" I would also argue that this statement is also being given WP:UNDUE weight relative to the opinions actually found in the other sources ... at least as they remain standing after all of the [{WP:OR]] and WP:SYN has been removed. So I shall withhold final judgment on this point until we have reviewed the other sources in detail, however I would be interested in hearing other people's first impressions of this issue.

Assuming that this statement is being given WP:UNDUE weight it would seem there are two courses of corrective action available: (1) simply remove the material as WP:UNDUE, or (2) include additional material from the source sufficient to bring the weight into proper balance. It would appear at first glance that option (2) is likely to bloat the article significantly so I would favor option (1). Thoughts from others?

(An Aside: I seem to recall reading a policy or a guideline which stated, in effect, that our description of a source's content had to provide an accurate reflection of the content in question. In other words you can't simply cherry pick to push a POV, but rather you have to accurately represent the main points and positions of the sources being cited. I can't put my finger on this, though, does anyone know where this might be found?) --GoRight (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree that this single statement has been given WP:UNDUE weight relative to the content of the rest of the source? If so, please state your case. Silence shall be interpreted as no disagreement with this position (after a suitable waiting period, of course). --GoRight (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. It's an extremely accurate statement, and makes a great lead quote for the rest of the section. All of the following commentators speaking in support of the book would be considered conservative by by most of the Australian public. Most of the journals they are writing in are also considered at least somewhat conservative. I don't think it matters whether the quote is representative of the source or not, since the information contained in it is independent of the rest of the information in the source (ie. if the rest of the source argued that progressive progressive press also thought the book was great, THEN it would be problematic). --naught101 (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Subpoint 2

"Christopher Pearson, a columnist with the conservative broadsheet The Australian, served as master of ceremonies at the book's launch and hailed it as a "campaign document" for climate change skeptics that 'contains all the scientific ammunition they could want, packed into 493 eloquent pages.'"

Peddie, Clare (April 24, 2009). "Heated argument". The Advertiser.

I note that this sentence is relying on a non-electronic source, or at least one for which no electronic version is supplied, which is perfectly permissible as long as it is verifiable. I assume someone here has access to a hard copy or something? Otherwise how do you know what it says at all? The only part that I want to verify here is the "conservative broadsheet" claim, and specifically the conservative aspect of that. Does anyone here know if the source actually refers to The Australian as being a "conservative broadsheet" in the same article that is discussing this specific book? If you have access to the source can you please post the relevant sentence or two where this connection is made?

I ask because I am taking the argument set forth by KDP at Talk: Richard Lindzen, [11], and corroborated by Oren0, [12], as a template. In that case I was arguing for the inclusion of primary source material which KDP claimed was WP:OR because the secondary source did not tie it directly to Lindzen. We seem to have exactly the analogous scenario playing out here. If the source specifically ties the conservative label to The Australian in the context of discussing this book, then fine. But if not then it would appear to be WP:OR via WP:SYN, a point which I have now accepted at Lindzen's article since two respected editors with ostensibly different POVs have asserted the same position. Fine, I can learn. I have learned. Let us apply that learning here. Thoughts on this point, KDP? Others?

If the application of the "conservative" label turns out to be WP:OR in the same sense that KDP corrected me for in Lindzen, then it must be removed. --GoRight (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The "conservative broadsheet" bit was added by editor Ratel here , with the comment ""The Australian" is used several times on this page and is characterised as conservative on its wiki page; this descriptor should be uncontroversial." This is incorrect -- The Australian article characterizes (and cites) the paper as "Centre-right" -- although the infobox there conflicts, saying "conservative", uncited. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Too long to read and respond to, you simply raise too many questions and draw too many arguments in one post - can you summarize this into simple single arguments? And please drop the attempt at precendence claiming from other articles - the context here and there are very different, and a discussion on why it is different is completely off-topic here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll attempt to use smaller, easier to understand steps. The "conservative broadsheet" claim, [13], was added ostensibly for the following reason: ""The Australian" is used several times on this page and is characterised as conservative on its wiki page; this descriptor should be uncontroversial." As I have recently come to learn at Talk:Richard Lindzen, since the claim of The Australian being "conservative" is not tied to this book by a secondary source this is WP:OR and should be removed as such. I would also point out that if "its wiki page" is a reference to the Wikipedia page The Australian then it also fails WP:RS. The contexts are not different and the argument is exactly analogous. Policies are to be applied equally across all articles. --GoRight (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Since User:Oren0 was instrumental in clearing up my obvious confusion at Talk:Richard Lindzen on a similar matter I have asked him to provide an opinion here as well. --GoRight (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC) This notice provided pursuant to WP:CANVASS#Friendly notices.

Yes, i thought you would do that. Perhaps you should consider the fact, that invoking canvass before canvassing, doesn't make it less so? As i said - Lindzen is not here, this is another article - and another problem. You should concentrate on splitting up your points so that they can be adressed, by all editors here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oren0 successfully improved the discussion at Lindzen, so I was hoping that he could do so here as well given that he has a proven track record of doing so. It seems unreasonable to think that I am intending to influence the outcome of the discussion here since he was on your side in the other conversation, in other words if he is like minded it is with you, not me on the issue we are discussing.

"Perhaps you should consider the fact, that invoking canvass before canvassing, doesn't make it less so?" - I make no such claim. I merely provided the notice here that was required by the behavioral guideline I cited, see "Always remember to keep the message neutral, and to leave a note at the discussion itself that you sent out such friendly notices." Nothing more.

"As i said - Lindzen is not here, this is another article - and another problem." - Sorry, but the policies and the principles involved span both articles. Do you not agree? --GoRight (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article contains two references that both state that the response has been positive only amongst the conservative press - that is what should be considered (ie. the connection has been made). It is not just "the Australian", which incidentally is placed as a conservative broadsheet in its own article (contrary to what has been stated before). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We are taking things point by point here. I fully intend to review each such claim on a case-by-case basis and, unless the secondary source explicitly makes a connection between "conservative" and the source being so labeled in the context of discussing this book, have it removed as WP:OR. When we are done with that we can return to the first sentence and evaluate it for WP:WEIGHT given all of the other sources. Right now the first sentence should be removed as an obvious cherry pick from the source being cited. Adding this second WP:WEIGHT issue, i.e. that none of the other sources are making this "connection" (assuming it turns out that way), will just be icing on the cake.

So the question RIGHT HERE is, on this specific sentence, does the cited source connect "conservative" to The Australian in connection with a discussion of this book? Yes or no. If no then this specific instance of "conservative" should be removed as WP:OR. --GoRight (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's a tendentious and nonsensical misreading of WP:OR. The Australian is unquestionably a conservative publication; I've just added a series of citations to the (rather poor) Wikipedia article on the newspaper to corroborate this. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if you think so, please go express your opinion in response to [14] and [15]. Doing so would be ever so helpful.

"I've just added a series of citations to the (rather poor) Wikipedia article on the newspaper to corroborate this." - Thanks for the update, however your doing so does not transform that article into a WP:RS. --GoRight (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course the article isn't an RS. The RS's cited in the article are, however. I suggest that you have a look at them. As for Lindzen, I'm afraid I have no idea who he is and no particular interest in intervening in another dispute of yours. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If any of them specifically mention that fact in the context of discussing this book, please bring them here. Otherwise they would ALL be WP:OR via WP:SYN here per the parallel to KDP's argument at Lindzen. His position there was, in essence, that you need a secondary source to make the connection. Oren0 agreed. I have now accepted that principle as Wikipedia policy and community practice and am now applying it here. --GoRight (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to ask again - will you please stop intermingling articles and situations that have different contexts? The Lindzen article is not what is at focus here, nor is this a policy page where you discuss the merits of various approaches to handle situations. What we discuss here is the specific problems and issues that arise from reliable sources about Plimer's book. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"What we discuss here is the specific problems and issues that arise from reliable sources about Plimer's book". - Which is precisely what I am doing despite you attempts to distract from that point. You have yet to dispute the WP:OR argument being set forth here, regardless of my commentary regarding the origins thereof. If you find my using your own arguments to my advantage in other applicable contexts embarrassing, I apologize, but that does not invalidate the argument in either context. The principle at play either applies everyone on Wikipedia, or nowhere on Wikipedia. You don't get to argue both sides of the same principle as it suits you in different contexts. The policies and principles DO span articles and must be applied consistently. --GoRight (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes GR i have adressed your OR argument (several times). Despite your insistence on not hearing it: We have sources that connect [ "positive responses" is equal to "conservative commentators" ] directly to "Plimer's book". I've mentioned this before, perhaps it got lost in all the text? The context and the issues are different between the two cases - therefore it is not "both sides of the same principle", sorry. (and such discussion still doesn't belong here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You may have claimed a lot of things. And if these references you claim exist I will eventually happen upon them in my methodical walk through each. Until then please answer the question regarding THIS source and THIS sentence within the article. --GoRight (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

So, getting back to the question at hand. Where do you, KDP specifically but others as well, stand in the issue of the article titled "Heated argument"? Does that article make a connection between "conservative" and The Australian in a discussion of this book, or not? If not then THIS use of conservative should be removed as WP:OR. It is a simple enough question, please answer it. --GoRight (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Geez, I've never seen my name invoked so many times in a discussion. I think GoRight is generally correct here, to a point. Throwing around the adjective "conservative" as a pejorative in front of any source isn't justified just because you can find a source that says it about the source in general. Per WP:SYN, you need to find a source to bridge the gap, i.e. a source that mentions the paper as conservative in the context of this book. I haven't read up on this enough to decide whether such a source exists. For the record Kim, it's true that not all comparisons between articles are valid but that doesn't mean that they can immediately be dismissed out of hand. Other than "it's not the same article", I'm curious if you can explain why the same argument from Talk:Richard Lindzen doesn't apply here. Oren0 (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's still a misreading of SYN. No new argument or position is being advanced here. Describing a particular newspaper as conservative is no more an act of synthesis than describing Barack Obama as a president, or George W. Bush as a Republican. Your interpretation of SYN would mean that (for instance) we could not say that Obama is president unless a cited source mentioned both Obama's presidency and whatever else he was doing in the same piece. It is no more than a description of undisputed fact.

The real issue here is that some people want to get rid of the description of pro-Plimer publications as conservative. However, this would leave a seriously misleading impression of the book's coverage. It's clear that the book has been praised by one particular political faction - we cite a source that states that explicitly - and conservative journalists have actively promoted it (in fact, one acted as the emcee at the book's launch). Eliminating the references to the conservative press would give the false impression that the book has been praised across the political spectrum, which is not the case. It's fundamentally not a science book; as that emcee-journalist said, it's a "campaign document". Given the political nature of the work, it's highly relevant to describe how it has been received on a political level. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, not true. We have several sources now that have noted the praise coming from conservative quarters only, and on that basis it's perfectly ok to note whether praise comes from left or right. Oh, and since when did the adjective "conservative" become a pejorative? I don't think there's a dictionary in the world that would agree with that little morsel of inventive reasoning. ► RATEL ◄ 07:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As the above commentators have stated, the large difference here is that there is such a "bridge" (at least 2 in fact), that directly link <exclusively conservative commentators> with <positive reviews of the book>, thus the "Lindzen argument" is not relevant. As i've tried to point out: These two issues are fundamentally different - in the first there was no linkage, in the second there is such a linkage. And thus goes the OR/SYN argument out the window. As a side issue - the editors here have searched and searched for a non-conservative positive critique, to counter the reliability of these sources (commendable btw. and the correct way to do it, if they find that it is incorrect) - but they haven't been able to find such. Thus we apparently end up with the rather desperate OR/SYN argument, and allusions to other articles. Now as i've tried to point out here, the correct way to work on this, is to focus on whether the weight and the veracity of these references merit the inclusion and mention. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Subpoint 3

Miranda Devine, an editorial advisor for the conservative magazine Quadrant, wrote that "Plimer's book, accessible as it is to the layperson, will help redress the power imbalance between those who claim to own the knowledge and the rest of us."

Devine, Miranda (April 18, 2009). "Planet doomsayers need a cold shower". Sydney Morning Herald.

This source does not appear to link "conservative" to Quadrant. This specific use of "conservative" appears to be WP:OR via WP:SYN. As a result the word "conservative" should be removed in this instance. --GoRight (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry? But you seem to (again) have missed the (at least) 2 references that make the link. Synthesis would be if we (as editors) had made the observation that commentators that are positive are conservative ... and we haven't. This is the wrong approach GR, what you should approach is instead whether the references that make the connection are significant enough. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am doing anything other than methodically walking down through every reference in this section. Each reference has to be evaluated on its own merits. This is also a principle I learned from you (I need to start writing these down so I can simply save time by referring to them by number). I am not done in my analysis, nor will I BE done in my analysis, until I have created a subpoint section for every single sentence and reference in the entire Media Reactions section. What part of that don't you understand? However, while I work my way through the remaining ones we can begin the process of debating the one's I have already verified either make, or not, the required connection.

"what you should approach is instead whether the references that make the connection are significant enough." - Which I am already in the process of doing. I should have thought that obvious since I explicitly stated as much. The first step to doing what you suggest is to establish which references make a valid connection, and which do not. That is what I am currently doing. Once that is complete, we can then assess whether the ones that do are making the connect are being given undue weight relative to the rest. If you managed to find 1 or 2 such connections out of many more then they should be removed because of WP:UNDUE. Regardless if the connection remains in the article, or even in the lead for that matter, it should only be included where it is justified by secondary sources. Finding one source that makes the connection does not give you carte blanche to then spam the article using WP:OR of your own making on a point-by-point basis.

So, the question in this subpoint is, again, does this source make the required connection, or not? Yes or no. If no then the reference in this sentence being made to "conservative" is WP:OR and should be removed. So where do you, KDP, stand on this question as applied to this reference? --GoRight (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are these references? Not in the article, that I can see. And what does Quadrant magazine have to do with an article in the Sydney Morning Herald? This look like another of Ratel's strained attempts to label everyone in sight.--Pete Tillman (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight, do you (or anyone else here) actually contest, that Quadrant is being mostly described as conservative? Or are you just arguing about formalities? In their 'about us' section, Quadrant themself stated that they are often described conservative, neo-conservative, or rightwing[16] SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 23:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not actually taking a stand either way on whether these sources actually ARE conservative, or not. I have not investigated that point. Nor do I intend to because the act of doing so is the very WP:OR that is being contested here.

The community standard, as expressed by KDP and Oren0 in the Lindzen case I refer to above, demands that the secondary source make the connection to such traits explicitly. Seriously, that is what he claims, I would presume, is the community standard in such cases. I am merely arguing that the community standard should be applied equally which in the case of this article would mean that only sources which directly make the "conservative" connection can actually USE a "conservative" connection even IF one actually exists. If we as editors go off and do our own research to determine if a source is conservative, that's WP:OR and as such it cannot be used.

I am merely going through the process of validating, one by one, that the use of the term "conservative" is justified under the principle that KDP has, himself, articulated elsewhere. Note, for example, that I explicitly acknowledged that the source in the first sentence DOES make that connection within the context of a discussion of this book. So I am not contesting its inclusion on these grounds, but rather on the WP:WEIGHT it is being given (which is a completely different topic of discussion, obviously). --GoRight (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Author's conflict of interest?

• I found a blog source claiming that Plimer is a director of 3 mining companies. If that's true, it's a disturbing conflict of interest and needs to be mentioned in the article. Can some other editor confirm or deny this? ► RATEL ◄ 02:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's another source [17] ► RATEL ◄ 02:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Plimer is a director of CBH Resources, a Sydney-based mineral resource company with a mine at Cobar and an underground mine in Broken Hill. He is also a director of Ivanhoe Resources, which has a large ore body outside Cloncurry in Queensland. This commercial interest in mining, according to Plimer, does not colour his arguments, which he says are based on pure science. His line is that the speed of light remains the same no matter who funds the research, and he is annoyed at being regularly questioned about his interests ...news.com.au

Why would you think this is a conflict of interest? He is a professor of mining geology.

If properly sourced, worth a (neutral) mention at his wikibio page. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ivanhoe

• Shows Plimer is on board of Ivanhoe, which mines copper, gold and uranium and has minings tenements of over 6000 square kilometer in size in Australia.

• The incredibly generous employment contract given to Plimer by Ivanhoe, which should not be online probably. ► RATEL ◄ 03:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What on earth do copper, gold and uranium mining have to do with climate change? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read news.com.au ► RATEL ◄ 03:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I did. It does not answer my question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Beats me too. Appears irrelevant to the book. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have to spell it out. Here's a Gold mining CEO squealing about how carbon trading, known as the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in Australia, will hurt his business. ► RATEL ◄ 04:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's too much to read, here's the shorter version from another Gold mining CEO: “In its first five years, the ETS will cost the Australian coal and gold mining sectors $5 billion and $850 million respectively,” he said. [18] Are we all on the same page now? Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 04:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't confuse things by mixing coal into the rest. (Note also that his company produces uranium, which could benefit enormously from proposals for displacement of fossil fuel generated electricity by nuclear plants. Even copper could benefit from alternative energy.) If conflict of interest is a significant part of the debate over the book we can report it. But we can't make such arguments on our own -- viz., Plimer has connections to the mining industry; some sectors of the mining industry stand to lose from emissions regulations; therefore Plimer has a conflict. That's textbook WP:SYN. It also detracts from the main concern about the book, which is that it's totally out of whack with everything we know about the science. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a thoughtful response, Boris, so I'll answer carefully but try to be concise:

1. SYN — We have at least one RS linking Plimer, COI and the book [19]. I can probably find more, since the source states that Plimer is frequently assailed over his COI, to his annoyance.
2. Uranium and copper — Plimer's mining interests are mainly in Gold, which will definitely face a massive financial penalty under any sort of emissions trading scheme. All mining operations will face some level of penalty. I have seen no evidence that uranium and copper will be beneficiaries from an ETS, but even if they did, it may be outweighed by the penalties imposed. (And did you know there will be fewer nuclear power plants operating in 10 years than are operating now? [20] )
3. COI — The simple and inescapable facts are that (a) Plimer has a large financial stake in the mining industry and that (b) this industry in general, and Plimer's gold mines in particular, stands to lose money under any sort of carbon trading scheme, and that (c) he has written a book that attempts to influence this debate by pooh-poohing the reasons for such a scheme, and that (d) he has personally attacked the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme in Australia. This is an open-and-shut case of COI. ► RATEL ◄ 05:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

All very interesting, but I'm afraid it would be improper synthesis to include that in this article unless a reliable source publishes a commentary specifically linking Plimer's mining interests with his book - not in the sense of the article you quote, which simply mentions the mining interests as background, but specifically describing it as a factor influencing his views. It's the analogue (but from the other direction, so to speak) of Tillman's attempt to promote a conspiracy theory by linking a particular scientist's research grants with his views on Plimer's book. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this source do that? ► RATEL ◄ 08:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

CBH Resources

Plimer shown on Board of CBH Resources ► RATEL ◄ 03:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Kefi Minerals

Plimer shown on Board of Kefi Minerals ► RATEL ◄ 03:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Mining Journal article paints a clear picture

From http://www.mining-journal.com/fifth-column/warming-up (I have created a convenience link here for you to read the article) :

Meanwhile, Prof Plimer is making his voice heard in the debate about the Australian government’s proposal to combat global warming by implementing the most sweeping carbon-trading scheme outside the European Union. Of course, his conviction that human activity is not responsible for global warming makes the government’s proposals for him even more galling. "There is a danger that the carbon-trading scheme will decimate Australia’s mining industry, the main driving force of its economy, but which needs a great deal of energy for its operations", he points out... The Australian government has backed itself into a corner, he suggests. The carbon trading scheme could make Australia poor by destroying mining and processing operations...

This highly reliable source proves beyond doubt that Plimer is interested in influencing a debate that affects him materially, and thus has a clear COI. ► RATEL ◄ 08:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Mother Mary an Jozef, is the red font really necessary?? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I've caught yr attention ► RATEL ◄ 16:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This quote isn't in the excerpt you link to (original article is behind a pay wall). Can you check, and try to copy the whole article there? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you use the convenience link I've provided above? Alternatively, join the site for a free trial period like I did. ► RATEL ◄ 22:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I used your "convenience link", and only got an excerpt -- as I already said. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's all of it. It starts with the sentence "Not..". I suppose in the print version there's an intro paragraph in another font or something that never made it into the digital version. ► RATEL ◄ 05:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• (start over). Found it, thanks. I'm travelling (wonky wifi connections) and guess the first try cut off the doc.

Here's the full quote of those 2 key paras:

"There is a danger that the carbon-trading scheme will decimate Australia’s mining industry, the main driving force of its economy, but which needs a great deal of energy for its operations, he points out. It could also force many “clean and green” Australian smelters to close and have their operations transferred to “dirty” plants overseas.

The Australian government has backed itself into a corner, he suggests. The carbon trading scheme could make Australia poor by destroying mining and processing operations – which would lead to the government being kicked out by the electorate."

Note that (if my copy is accurate) these aren't direct quotes, but paraphrases by the reporter (except for "clean & green"). Note that the context softens your case. Plimer has been active in the mining industry for his entire career -- it's unsurprising that he would argue their case. Your COI interpretation still appears to be OR/SYN -- see ChrisO's comment, above -- no direct tie to the book. But it's an interesting article -- thanks for posting it. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll refrain from inserting it into the book article, in deference to what ChrisO has said, although I think it is adequately sourced in the AdelaideNow article to warrant a mention. If further mention is made in the press of this issue, it has to go in. I'm also refraining from further editing of the article in the interests of ending the edit warring over the content. If we can all agree to leave it alone now and walk away (at least until more relevant sources are published), so much the better.► RATEL ◄ 23:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed this (COI SYN) per your remark, above. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

But I said it is worth mentioning and I'd refrain if you stopped nibbling at the article. But you're back at it, so in it goes. There is no SYN there at all. Not only is the book a blatant example of COI, but Plimer was tackled on the subject of COI in a RS. Sourcing is fine, no synthesis required. It's going back in, and could even be expanded. We'll need to RfC this if you oppose again. State your opposition here and I'll RfC it straight away. ► RATEL ◄ 05:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)