Talk:James Hansen/Archive 2

Notability and consensus

In re: Hansen's coal-train/crematoria statement. (I can't believe I'm doing this again.)

Since this is once again turning into a revert-war, and full consensus seems unlikely, I offer the following stipulations, that I hope everyone involved can agree to, as a step towards resolving the controversy:

Stipulation 1: Hansen really did make this statement, he has stood by it (with minor caveats), and his statement, its context and its background are amply documented in the public record, in the page history here, and in the proposed article addition (see Special:PermanentLink/228641806#Coal for article context).

• When testifying against the construction of new coal-fired power plants lacking carbon capture and storage technology, he stated "If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species."

(Sidelight: the Des Moines Register link has expired. When you search on the article title ""More from NASA's Hansen on coal", the site asks, Did you mean "More from Nazi's Hansen on coal"?)

Stipulation 2. WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed (emphasis added) to be notable." Hansen's statement was published in the Des Moines Register (where he testified), commented on twice in the New York Times [1] [2], and widely discussed on the net [3] and in print.

In my personal view, it's difficult to see how one could argue that this topic is not notable.

Stipulation 3. WP:BLP states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

My conclusion: Hansen's statement is well-documented, meets WP:Notability and WP:BLP guidelines, and is relevant to Dr. Hansen's views on coal use and climate change. It belongs in the Hansen article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Those in favor of inclusion:

• --GoRight (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• --Oren0 (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Those against inclusion:

Comments

I guess it is clear that Hansen really has made the statements and also that there has been some media coverage about it. But just because a certain topic got some media attention doesn't mean it is necessarily noteworthy for its corresponding wikipedia article. (see 'presumed' above) So why exaclty is this particular quote important for Hansen's biographic article? I don't think that a bunch of extreme quotes (maybe each of them picked to push a certain POV?) make a good biography. In fact there are far too many quotes in this article in general... But with this particular one, I get the feeling that some people might want it included just because it makes him look like a deranged extremist. If, on the other hand, as Tillman suggested earlier in the debate, the whole point is to document Hansen's confrontational style (I don't know, is he?), then we should write that in the text and give the 'death train' example as a reference, rather than having the 'death train' statement out of context by itself. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 01:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Presume, v.tr., To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary[4]. So it's noteworthy unless we have a good reason to say otherwise. So far, the reasons I've heard are that we don't like quotes or that it only serves to make Hansen look bad. If this was really about quotes, we could just add the material in a paraphrase. And making Hansen look bad isn't a reason for inclusion per BLP as quoted above. So, again, given that we're presuming this to be worthy of inclusion, what reason is there to exclude it. Oren0 (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"But with this particular one, I get the feeling that some people might want it included just because it makes him look like a deranged extremist." – (1) Strictly speaking, our personal motivations are likely to be varied but in any event they are not particularly germane to the determination of whether this quote is notable or not. We don't decide such matters based on the personal views or desires of the wikipedians, right? (2) Hansen himself is obviously not at all ashamed of the quote so why should you seek to exclude it on that basis?

"So why exactly is this particular quote important for Hansen's biographic article?" – Because it is particularly illustrative of how strongly he feels about and views the topic.

"... rather than having the 'death train' statement out of context by itself." – I for one am not advocating taking anything out of context. If the current version is lacking in context then by all means add the required context and improve the article from that perspective rather than obstructing legitimate content.

"In fact there are far too many quotes in this article in general..." – I would point out WP:PAPER, and we seem well within the limits specified in WP:Article size, see Wikipedia:Article size#A rule of thumb, since the "search method" of determining the size of an article, see [5], currently reports "26 KB (3896 words) – 14:35, 30 July 2008". --GoRight (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Y'all taking this WAY too seriously

• My most recent comments were in the context of someone else wanting to add a quote about trials, explicitly as a means of showing Hansen's start of mind; the editor stated the intent to make him out as an extremist who values humans as equal to other species and somehow related to Pete Singer --- and basing this not on actual sourcing but on blog postings by a third party f'r gosh sake! can you imagine a less reliable source? --- and the same or another editor wanted to quote to show Hansen's disrespect for the American Constitution. From there, it swiftly devolved into a controversy about the death train quote.
• There is no need to be cute about why this editting issue arises. While the decision whether to include a particular edit must and always must be strictly on the merits of the edit, it is worth noting when edits are made with a clear political purpose, in this case, to make Hansen out to be anti-human and/or anti-constitution. I mean, c'mon, the editors said so right here on the talk page. Let's talk honestly now; we can all afford to be honest here; there is no penalty to it. The pro-inclusion editors consistently argue that it's important to include these quotes to explore or illustrate Hanson's state of mind; yet the highly subjective concept of state of mind is very unlikely to be objectively sourcable. An editor who picks and choose quotes to make an argument about Hansen's state of mind is conducting OR. It would be allowable, instead, to quote an authority regarding his state of mind but that has not been done. If, for example, Hansen were to say "I am a Pete-Singer-style Extremist!" that would be proper sourcing for that proposition; but to quote "death train" or "crimes against humanity trials" to establish that proposition is simply wrong.
• As I wrote above, and no-one has refuted, biographies should avoid quotes unless the quote has become so famous that it has entered the general language (e.g. "Don't give up the ship!"), and in that case they go into a "quotes" section because the bare fact that a person can talk is not notable.
• So why could the quotes be possibly notable? It seems undisputable that there is a controversy – on this talk page anyway – about the quotes. Proper sourcing of the controversy would be to refer to the controversy itself – for example, to say "on a blog, someone had a controversy", but no editor has proposed that. It is clear that the quotes describing his state of mind, or what-ever your purpose may be, are themselves the controversy. Therefore, they belong in a controversy section. That's an easy and proper solution.
• I have accordingly re-arranged the sections, adding/deleting nothing but section headers, keeping all the same content, but putting the most objective information first, then the most notable controversy (censorship claim), then the other controversies (seems to be 4 or 5 of them). This way, everyone gets to have their favorite quotes, in the correct context – that there is some controversy.
• And ... finally and most importantly, everyone is being a little too serious about this. This is only wikipedia – you won't change the fact of global warming by making Hansen out to be an extremist. So include the quote, don't include the quote, in reality it don't matter; but if the quote must be there, it goes in the proper place. Mostly likely wikiquote but what the hey. rewinn (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to having these controversies included in an over-all controversy section but I do object to elevating one of them above the others. This is a subjective decision on your part as to what is notable and what is not. There is no reason to consider the censorship controversy more notable than the others. This is just another thinly veiled POV push IMHO. Leave them all on equal footing and allow the reader to decide which are notable and which are not.

You state above that biographies should not include quotes and that no one disagreed. Well I am disagreeing here and now. The use of quotes eliminates any controversy based on a particular editor's POV in the paraphrasing thereof. Allow the speaker's words to represent what the speaker meant. The is no more WP:NPOV way of conveying the speaker's intent. If the context becomes an issue then allow both sides to include the relevant information along with the quote so that the reader is properly informed without the editorial POV pushing, e.g. such as elevating one's preferred "controversies" above those of others. Report the facts and loose the editorial interpretations. --GoRight (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Support for using quotes, per User:GoRight above. Paraphrases are tough to make NPOV, and what's the point? And, yes, it is only Wikipedia, but some of us have devoted considerable effort to improving it to professional standards -- --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The point, as clearly stated above, is that there is no more WP:NPOV means of describing what someone said than a direct quote. So, if the goal is as wikipedia policy dictates (i.e. to be WP:NPOV) then direct quotes should be preferred, not shunned. As always, with appropriate context provided, of course. Also note, there is nothing unprofessional about using quotes. Professional writers use them all the time. --GoRight (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• About whether one controversy is more notable others:
  • The Censorship controversy: This is a real, notable controversy. It has been extensively covered in the media, been the object of attention (for AND against) in the US Congress, featured in a movie, etc. There is no question that it is notable.
  • The Fast-Feedback and Climate Database controversies: These are not about the subject of this article. They are controversies about science, about which the subject of this article has commented. They may (or may not) be notable in themselves, and merit coverage either on their own wiki Article or within Global Warming, but are clearly not at the same level as the Censorship controversy for the purpose of this article
  • The quote controversies: These are esoteric and little-known controversies; they reflect no third party action, no Congressional action, nothing (on the evidence) EXCEPT the reaction of some people in the blogosphere. While they may or may not be somewhat notable, they are not remotely comparable in notability to the censorship controversy.
  • Finally, as to "subjective": Every word in a wikipedia article reflects a subjective decision on the part of an editor to include it. There are objective reasons above as to why the censorship controversy is far more notable than the others. Your claim of POV-pushing is mistaken; like I said, y'all take this much too seriously.
• As to "Professional writers use quotes all the time": That is irrelevant. Professional writers editorialize, conduct original research, and do a lot of things that don't belong here. Using wikipedia to push the idea that there is a notable controversy is not professional, and it's not the purpose of wikipedia. If a quote is the genuine subject of a notable controversy, then it is appropriate to include the quote to illustrate what the controversy is about, but you can't bootstrap a purported controversy into notability by including the quote in wikipedia.
• There is no need to be cute about the reason for including the controversial quotes; you think Hansen has a certain state of mind which you wish to illustrate by selective quotations. Fine! But to do this, you must find an article by an objective journalist (not a blogger) exploring Hansen's state of mind and why it's controversial; you can't just selectively quote the guy. I'm not arguing that Hansen does not have the state of mind which you wish to advertise ... I genuinely don't know and don't really care ... but rather that it's not our job to research it.
• And, like I said, you're taking this WAY too seriously. You're not going to stop the science behind global warming by editing wikipedia. It's a powerful tool, but not that powerful. rewinn (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hansen's Allegations

I see Raul is starting to edit war over this issue, so perhaps a discussion here is appropriate. In the sources provided Hansen offers no evidence to support his allegation of there being a disinformation campaign. Therefore with respect to his actual statements these are allegations not statements of fact. Even if other sources can be shown to claim that such a disinformation campaign actually exists, combining those sources with Hansen's statement requires WP:OR, at least IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see fresh from his RFC and newly instituted community ban, GoRight has decided to start an edit war on this article. He's also brought along his habit of making distorted claims about Wikipedia policies too.

Hansen was commenting on the well-established, well-known fact that the energy industry funds global warming deniers. There are tons of sources that establish this. It is inaccurate and misleading to say that Hansen "claims" they do -- it gives the reader a false impression that (a) he's the only one saying it, and (b) that it might not be true. Nor, as you falsely claim, is it original research to establish the basis for his comment using such sources. Raul654 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have started no edit war. I made one change to improve accuracy which didn't involve a revert. --GoRight (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now made a second edit to this same effect based on the significantly revised text for the same reasons cited above. --GoRight (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't increase accuracy – the paragraph starts with the premise that this is Hansen's view, to state it once more, in the same sentence is redundant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can accept that as a valid argument. --GoRight (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You made a change which decreased the accuracy of the article, gave a false impression to readers, and effectively reverted Kim's prior change (and thus was a revert). And given your second revert, you have also violated your own alleged self-imposed 1 revert restriction. Raul654 (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a funny way of counting reverts. My first edit did not revert KDP's material, nor has my second in point of fact. --GoRight (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You have an unfunny way of trying to wikilawyer your way around your own misbehavior. Just because you weren't reverting to the exact prior revision doesn't mean they weren't reverts, your own false claims to the contrary not withstanding. Raul654 (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of these edits were within both the letter and the spirit of WP:0RR. --GoRight (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, as usual – "What is a revert? - A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors." – Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. And yet another instance of you making distorted claims about policy. Raul654 (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take note of WP:0RR which states:

Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints.

In the case of the first edit I did not remove KDP's point, I merely augmented it for accuracy based on the context of the statement. This cannot be called a revert in any sense of the word. In the case of the second edit I did the same exact thing, although if you want to consider my making the analogous point in the second edit a "revert" after you had removed my first edit, then fine, I have made one "revert". Still consistent with WP:1RR but I think this is a stretch on your part. --GoRight (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I made a couple of minor changes for accuracy, but since this para. is so contentious, it might be best just to quote Hansen's entire statement:

"CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.

But the conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation if we pass on a runaway climate to our children..." -- from his "Guest Opinion: Global Warming Twenty Years Later" [6] --with appropriate adjustments to the para to avoid duplication. Thoughts? --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't this been discussed to death? See for instance the section above, with rewinn's comments on just quoting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In re: cites for Hansen's allegations. Can you please quote where in these cites (or elsewhere) that demonstrates that "fossil-fuel companies have actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming", and that this isn't just Hansen's (& others) opinion? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you read the entire Complex-compound sentence as a whole – instead of focusing on a single short sentence, you'd notice that this is Hansen's opinion that we are specifying. It starts with "Hansen has called .... " and ends with a punctuation. And if you read the actual references, you'll find that Hansen is only calling for trials for those that have misinformed the public, for short term goals. That is the context for that specific quote, and without that information, we are misrepresenting Hansen's views. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess we shouldn't have a complex-compound sentence, then, because it sure looks like we're presenting opinion as fact to me. Tagged for NPOV. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, this whole discussion reminds me of the "saying scientist is a statement of fact and so it needs to be attributed to LS" argument KDP was making a while back ... only then he was arguing the opposite side. Hmmm. Perhaps you should review The Deniers and Lawrence Solomon and try recycling those arguments here. Just replace "scientist" with "fossil-fuel companies have actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming".  :) On the other hand as your quote points out, Hansen never actually said this so in point of fact I guess this isn't his opinion and it would be wrong to attribute this to him as such. I guess this is actually KDP's opinion. --GoRight (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[Insert KDP's canonical "stick to this page, other decisions are unrelated, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, etc." response here] Oren0 (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:) It is true that we could have a list of canonical answers and simply refer to them by number in these conversations! --GoRight (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thats it then – i'm stopping the discussion here. The level of comments on a personal level has become to high. (funny that – i thought there where actual policies about this). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Which policies are you referring to? --GoRight (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps as a parting comment i should turn to another canonical: Address the content not the editor? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But my comments above ARE about the article and the topic being discussed. They are not about you, per se, as you were only mentioned as the author of some other arguments that Tillman might find useful in his attempts to convince you on this page given the obvious parallels between the two situations. As for the canonical comment, that wasn't mine, but it's also not an attack of any sort, is it? How is noting that you would likely make the argument referenced an attack or being uncivil, or do you have some other objection to referencing that argument? --GoRight (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AEB

Having gone back and read this again, I must say that I do sort of agree with Tillman. KDP has made an argument above that the entire sentence is prefaced as being part of Hansen's interviews and thus it should be clear that these are his opinions. Let us test that point by constructing an analogous statement for comparison purposes:

In his 2008 book, The Deniers, Lawrence Solomon discusses the ideas and positions of world renowned scientists, including Edward Wegman and Richard Lindzen, which go against the IPCC positions on global warming, because these and other scientists dispute the science and the politics of the IPCC and there is no consensus on the science of climate change.

Is it clear here that all of these statements are the opinions of Lawrence Solomon? Would you be OK with us making this statement? --GoRight (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not acceptable to use that statement. It gives undo weight to a tiny minority. Raul654 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are, of course, ignoring the question actually being discussed. --GoRight (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your defintions of WP:WEIGHT and thus WP:FRINGE regarding GW appear to be opportunistic at best Raul. Per Jimbo Wales, as quoted on WP:WEIGHT, If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. Claiming that these are all science articles and thus require peer reviewed adherents is a straw man when describing completely non-scientific coverage such as this.

The version of the article you were reverting to presents Hansen's allegations as fact. Are you, through wikipedia, claiming to have some kind of right to declare guilt based on having read an oped in Newsweek? Trials are used to decide guilt, and given the wording in the disputed paragraph was not a quotation, IMO presenting it as a fact that xyz is guilty pre-trial is pushing beyond a mere POV violation. I suggest you read weasel words and stop treating every edit made by GoRight as a bad faith attack on whatever you think the "reality of global warming" is. Jaimaster (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Tillman indirectly makes another point as well: perhaps the current sentence is too complex? What reading level should be we writing to here? --GoRight (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a new try, shorter & sweeter(?). Less ambiguous, I hope. BTW, what's AEB? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AEB = An Edit Break --GoRight (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Didn't work, I see. Sigh. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

GoRight, your supposed parallel ("In his 2008 book, The Deniers, Lawrence Solomon discusses the ideas and positions of world renowned scientists, including Edward Wegman and Richard Lindzen, which go against the IPCC positions on global warming, because these and other scientists dispute the science and the politics of the IPCC and there is no consensus on the science of climate change") is not comparable, since "discusses" does not introduce reported speech. It thus allows only one interpretation. On the question of ambiguity, I don't think there's much there for most people; but one could herd readers in the right direction by putting "on the grounds that" rather than "because" and moving the references to the end of the sentence. N p holmes (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"... does not introduce reported speech. It thus allows only one interpretation." – I don't know what you mean by this. Can you please explain further. --GoRight (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Bill said "John demanded their resignation, because they had lied". "They had lied" might be Bill's or John's opinion (either shared by Bill or not). 2) "Bill said "John discussed the lies told by those liars". That they had lied and that they were liars is Bill's opinion (presumably agreeing with John). N p holmes (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that Raul continues to edit war over this topic. He is now up to 5 reverts (more than any other editor) with the most recent 2 being just outside the WP:3RR window. Raul, I remind you that edit warring is disruptive and WP:3RR is not an entitlement to edit war within limits ... as you obviously already know. --GoRight (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, one of the reverts was undoing everything done by a sock, and the fact that it was a revert of this exact subject matter was nothing more than a coincidence. Jaimaster (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So noted (now), how do you know there was a revert of a sock? --GoRight (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The user reverted (Phonecloth 554) was banned for socket puppetry and vandalism, and Raul reverted a whole pile of its edits in one go, hitting this one more or less by accident Jaimaster (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

7.4 Trials for fossil fuel chiefs

It seems that, for balance, we should have some response here from the "accused". Anybody? --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For balance of what? This is a biographical article on Hansen. Not a general discussion. We can leave out this whole section entirely – its already undue weight to a small controversy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, nice try. These comments are notable statements from Hansen so they should be discussed. I agree with Tillman, though, if Hansen insists on making these types of allegations without providing any proof it is appropriate to discuss any response from those he is attempting to smear. This is needed to maintain WP:NPOV on an encyclopedic level. Wikipedia should not be introducing bias here by omission. --GoRight (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems only fair to run a response from an "accused", given that Hansen says he wants show trials. If you (KDP) feel the para's getting too long, we could trim the lobbyist stuff, which seems peripheral. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but only if it has WP:WEIGHT. When you search for the 'trials for fossil fuel chiefs' you will find lots of articles about Hansen's statement but almost none about any reactions from the accused (the one you give as reference seems more like an exception to me, no?). It seems they decided to ignored his statement pretty much. If that should be the case we paint a wrong picture by mentioning a single response. However I don't think we should remove the entire section. It appears the statement has been covered by too many newspapers. But yes, lets cut the last sentence about the lobbyists. By the way, what about the section above? It has the two tags sitting there for a while. Any sources?Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 22:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would you expect a letter written directly to the author of the piece being quoted to be carried widely in other news media? That seems silly. Those other media outlets would have no reason to point people to their competition, right? Besides, I would argue that this particular response is directly pertinent in this context because it is a direct response the specific article that was referenced for Hansen's quote. --GoRight (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that is the Wikipedia policy on weight and npov. If its not being covered to a degree that merits the weight – then it shouldn't be mentioned. Remember that npov doesn't mean equal time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

True. But this is clearly a case where WP:IAR applies. This could be the poster child for that policy. The following points seem directly applicable:

• Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. (See also Wikipedia:Use common sense.)
• The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored. (See also Wikipedia:The rules are principles.)
• Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you. (See also Wikipedia:Civility.)

In other words, if following the letter of WP:WEIGHT causes us to lose the spirit of WP:NPOV, as it clearly does in this case, then we should ignore WP:WEIGHT. --GoRight (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not clearly a case where WP:IAR applies. Why is it common sense that any response of the accused has to be inserted if there hardly was any? The whole reason why we include Hansen's statement in the first place is not because he made it but because he made it and it got much press coverage. I may be wrong but it seems that his statement got very little response from the oil coal companies – or at least it wasn't covered in the media. So, if we ignore all rules and include a response, the article will give the wrong picture of an open dispute between Hansen and big oil the coal industry over his accusations. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(starting over at left) I think Splette is right re Big Oil. Big Coal has been Hansen's main target, and he's been after them hot & heavy. Simple fairness would indicate we should give at least one line to the coal company's reply. Note that the cite is a reliable source -- the NY Times. --Pete Tillman (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how I could mix up oil and coal (but hey, they both evil fossil fuels, right? :-) But I have actually read the statement. Still, I think that there was too little response to be notable (even though NY Times is a reliable source). Also, an encyclopedia is not about fairness. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 13:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Also, an encyclopedia is not about fairness." – Yes, you seem to be making that point very clear. However it is the policy of this encyclopedia to be WP:NPOV and the spirit of that would argue in favor of inclusion since the spirit of that is reasonably summarized as being about basic fairness. But of course this has all been pointed out already. Either you (generically speaking) believe in fairness or you argue against it, IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is not about fairness – nor is it about truth or equal time. Its about weight. Try to actually read the policy – and you'll find that NPOV doesn't mean what you've just indicated. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the entire policy and not focus on one section thereof. While weight is one aspect of fairness, the fundamental principle that even raises any discussion of weight is the need to achieve fairness.

Even so, this whole focus on how many times a given side was picked up in the media is a red herring in this context from a WP:WEIGHT perspective. For the specific topic being discussed here, namely whether fossil fuel company CEOs should be put on trial, there are only two sides: Hansen's and those of the fossil fuel companies. In that context there is no WP:WEIGHT issue here at all. There is an issue with POV pushing by omission, though. --GoRight (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"There is an issue with POV pushing by omission..." Yes, exactly so, and I'm taken aback that neither Splette or KDP can appreciate this. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can find enough sources that do present the reply, so that it gets equal weight – then by all means present them. NPOV is a weighted point of view – not a neutral (as in equal weight) one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(later addition) As GoRight points out (above), Peabody's response is from a note sent directly to the NY Times columnist cited in our article. WP:WEIGHT is irrelevant here, and the response is impeccably sourced. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Kindly look at the article and compare the number of lines devoted to Hansen's attacks on the coal industry vs. the number of lines devoted to the coal companies replies (currently zero). Then ask yourself if this is NPOV. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the wikipedia article of Hansen, not the court trial "Hansen vs. Coal industry", where both sides have to have the chance to defend themselves. In particular, lets not forget this article is about the person James Hansen, not the coal industry, so we don't need to count the lines devoted to them. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 11:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• [start over at left] Splette: "...this article is about the person James Hansen, not the coal industry..."

The Hansen article at present has about 300 lines (excluding headers, TOC, infobox etc). Of these, about 50 are about coal and/or fossil fuels, so your statement is simply not correct. Our article correctly reports that Hansen has compared the coal industry to Nazi death-camps, advocated show-trials for the CEO of Peabody Coal (etc), and proposed the near-future shutdown of the coal industry. Are you seriously saying that there is no place in these 50-some lines to report the coal industry's response? And that eliminating such a response meets Wikipedia's NPOV policy? --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(squeeze in) Yes, I am saying that this is a biographic article of a person and therefore the focus lies on Hansen. If the article would be "Hansen_vs_coal_industry_controversy" we would have to include the response of course. But not in a biography about Hansen, not a log of the sequence of events that may be somehow related to him. The coal-related lines are in the article only because Hansen has made comments about it and it was covered in the media. As you know some editors felt that with these 50-something fossil-fuel-lines that aspect of Hansen't biography has been given too much weight already... Thus, this is not a good argument for adding even more of that.I am seriously saying that the response of the coal industry is irrelevant for a NPOV article about Hansen's life. What the reader of this article needs to know is who Hansen is. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Hansen, as noted above, has spent considerable time and energy attacking the coal industry. This is a valid part of his biography, and so should be the responses to his allegations. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a court trial, which is very true. Why then have the wikipedians protecting this article from the inclusion of the coal industry's response to these controversial claims apparantly taken it upon themselves to declare Hansen right and "Big Coal" guilty? If the section was correctly worded neutrally in such a way that you could not see where the sympathy of the authors lies, this entire talk page section and associated edit war would not exist. Why not replace the contested sentence with a quote from Hansen rather than ambiguously summarising it in such a way as to leave it open to interpretation? Jaimaster (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have problems following your interpretation, that we declare Hansen right and Big Coal guilty by not including their response. I strongly oppose putting more quotes. Are you saying that the 'Trials for fossil fuel chiefs' paragraph is written in a POV way? I really don't see how this would be the case but I am open for suggestions to improve the wording. If I am not mistaken the entire discussion here is not about the formulation of that parapraph but merely about the question whether a response should be included or not. That is why Tillman put the POV tag. Am I mistaken? And by the way, noone here has engaged into an edit war. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Are you saying that the 'Trials for fossil fuel chiefs' paragraph is written in a POV way?" – "That is why Tillman put the POV tag. Am I mistaken?" (Chuckles) That might have been your first clue, right there. He didn't put up the "they won't let me include a response" tag, now did he?

"I really don't see how this would be the case but I am open for suggestions to improve the wording." – "... about the question whether a response should be included or not." (Chuckles again) And that should have been your second. I hereby suggest that we improve the wording of this paragraph by including the Coal industry's response. --GoRight (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No one edit warring? GoRight changed the line, Raul654 reverted to original, Tillman changed, Raul654 reverted to original, Oren0 reverted to Tillman, KimDabelsteinPetersen reverted to original, GoRight reverted to Tillman, Raul654 reverted to original, Tillman added a citation needed tag, KDP added a citation, Tillman added an NPOV tag. Jtjn6 reverted all the way back to the middle of the edit war, Will Beback undid this revision, Raul654 reverted out the NPOV tag. Phonecloth (now banned sock puppet) reverted the NPOV tag back, Raul654 reverted the NPOV tag out again while undoing everything the sock did. Tillman re-added the dispute tag. Tillman attempted a compromise. KDP reverted the compromise. Tillman re-added the dispute tag.

There is edit warring there. Just because no one tipped past the arbitary line of 3RR doesnt make it okay.

Back to the point, either change the section into a quote of Hansen saying why he believes Big Coal should be on trial or include Big Coal's response. WP:WEIGHT is not a licence to use WP:WEASEL words. Jaimaster (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary, which is (sadly) typical of any attempt to make this page less of a hagiography for St. Hansen (sorry). I don't know why I bother. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• After careful review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, I'm unable to find support for User:Splette and Kim D. Petersen 's objections (above) to including a brief response from Hansen's "accused". Both articles stress the importance of Neutral point of view in Wikipedia biography articles; WP:BLP lists NPOV first among WP policies that must be followed. Since we seem unable to resolve this section's NPOV problems here, I'm referring the section (and page) for review to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, and will tag it accordingly. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough...if this is really that important to you. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 08:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the big problem here. The section reports what Hansen proposed, and I think readers, if they want to judge that, are perfectly capable of doing so given the text as it is. Just the facts, ma'am--that'll work here. No, I also don't see the need to include a response from the oil and coal executives--I don't want to disregard 'bias by omission' in general, but in this case (esp. since it's such a short section), wouldn't their response be absolutely predictable? "The executives disagree"--that would be the gist of it. I'm curious to know where this is going to go, as I'm learning about Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

oppose

• The statement about trials by the subject of this article is not very notable; his fame stems from his contributions to science, not in the realm of law, and he is not in a position to initiate criminal proceedings.
• Adding a response by coal industry executives would require a great deal of OR, eg. identifying who's a relevant executive is not trivial since there have been no actual charges lodged.
• The argument that a response by the executives (once you have researched who they bmay be) would be required by NPOV is without merit and based upon a misunderstanding of NPOV; this article is not about a trial of the executives (for which a neutral presentation of the relevant facts would be required) but about the scientist Hansen; a neutral presentation of his statements does not require a discussion of the views of those whom an editor presumes opposes those statements. For example, an article on the Bible does not require a presentation of the presumably opposing views of the Devil.
• Including tendatious quotes from persons not the subject of this article is to give undue weight to the manufactured controversy about the quote.

For all these reasons, the proposed edit is opposed rewinn (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of the Volokh Conspiracy

The Volokh Conspiracy is probably the premier talking shop for center-right lawyers in the US, possibly for all US lawyers. I got reverted on the grounds that it was unreliable. Please discuss here and either validate the reliability or feel free to submit better sourcing for the idea that the first amendment has little room for the kind of show trials Hansen's advocating. TMLutas (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? Your supposed source is a blog. The contributors are at best pseudonymous. And your interpretation of the inherently unreliable blog posts is a classical case of original research as well. Please don't waste our time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the contributors are mostly well known constitutional law professors. TMLutas (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean Professor Uthaw, Professor Oren, Professor Malvolio, Professor therut and Professor The General, to pick the first five contributors to that thread? The blog owners may well be notable experts, but the comments are effectively anonymous. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, point taken, sourcing should be better. What's your alternative? TMLutas (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Would need to be MSM. The MSM doesnt care that what Hansen called for is probably legally impossible, that wont sell papers (or more recently, online ad space). A nice headline saying "leading climate scientist calls for oil execs to be put on trial" does both. Dont worry yourself too much over it, most people should know what Hansen is asking for here is not really possible, be it for whatever reason they choose to believe (legal, unrealistic, right-wing conspiracy protecting oil chiefs, whatever). Jaimaster (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that without any sort of context setting, people who aren't too familiar with US legal rules get something of an NPOV impression about the matter. Not everybody reading en.wikipedia understands the US Constitution. TMLutas (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Freudian slip? The evils of neutrality... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fire James Hansen

There's a current effort to get James Hansen fired for violating ethical guidelines when he went over to the UK and testified in favor of the Kingsnorth Power Station vandals. Anthony Watts started the ball rolling on Sep 11 and there are several outlets that have picked up the call. I don't think that it's significant enough for its own section but a few words in the vandalism trial section seem appropriate TMLutas (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend waiting a few days for more reactions to come in. Here are a couple of non-blog opinion pieces:

• "Top NASA climatologist James Hansen endorses eco-vandalism" at National Review
• "Climate change chicanery" at The Telegraph

You will need to be scrupulously neutral in wording your addition: forex, you should cite sources that praise Hansen's testimony -- I noticed a number of these at The Guardian. Citing a few more reliable sources will help you make it stick. Good luck, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are the very definition of POV and have no place as sources. Wikipedia's job is not to promote (nor to discourage) politicking. rewinn (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Kingsnorth Power Station trial

I've made some minor edits to this section, which was a bit rough--and it still is. I cannot rightly figure out why the final remark, by this Ms. Hall, is relevant: ""The jury heard from the most distinguished climate scientist in the world. How could they ignore his warnings and reject his leading scientific arguments?" First of all, grammatically 'tis a bit unclear--the 'they' in the last sentence, that's the jury? Why would a jury in a case like this make any kind of acceptance or rejection of Hansen's position? And if they did, doesn't that contradict the previous statement that "the jury accepted the lawful excuse argument"?

But second, it strikes me that this introduces a POV, especially since it's the final word in the article--made in a context that has no relevance to even the court case. I propose striking that last sentence: it preserves the general NPOV (I've read the discussion, and I think this article is pretty neutral), and structurally it makes for a stronger section. Any thoughts? (I know this is article is a hornet's nest!) Drmies (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support striking last sentence, and agree that the para. needs a rewrite. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I was the editor who created the section and put in the Ms. Hall quote. Ms. Hall was one of the acquitted defendants and her quote is directly from the Independent news article. It seems directly relevant to the trial (since she was presumably present during her own trial) and provides some context about why Hansen's testimony was relevant to the outcome of the trial. I don't see how this is POV.kevinp2 (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you haven't addressed the grammatical ambiguity. Moreover, not everything in the world is relevant, especially not since this article is not about Ms. Hall's actions. Of course she was probably present during the trial (that's trivial), but surely you'll agree that she is hardly an impartial observer without an interest in Hansen's words. I mean, really. Besides, I have argued that the POV-pushing derives here from rhetorical context. The placement of the quote practically gives Ms. Hall the final word in the discussion, and that is not how an encyclopedia article is supposed to work (that I probably agree with Ms. Hall is beside the point). Drmies (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your paragraph above is confusing to read, but anyway, I have decided to not argue this point.kevinp2 (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

does not belong in this article

The trial is not noteworthy enough to merit its own wikiArticle; Hansen's testimony in it is likewise not noteworthy. This is not an article about litigation in a country of which Hansen is not a citizen. If his every statement is to be included in this article, it would be a very lengthy article indeed. rewinn (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The trial clearly is noteworthy: it's had a lot of UK press coverage. As a part of Hansen's biography, it's less important: a whole section is perhaps excessive. I don't see that Hansen's nationality is really relevant. N p holmes (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RV: I reverted Rewinn's blanking of the paragraph. The trial has been widely reported and Hansen's testimony is actually quite remarkable. The section can be reduced in size – I wanted to give fair context about the trial and the testimony, but if others can preserve the context and reduce the size of the section, then have at it.kevinp2 (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The trial is an instantiation of Hansen's legal strategy, of using the judicial system to get his way. The various sections need to get reworked but the power station trial is certainly important TMLutas (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats very nice original research. Now can you support any of those claims, with backing in reliable sources? (legal strategy etc.?) If not – then i suggest that you keep your POV to yourself – and stick to what can be supported by reliable sources and WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore's science advisor

The lead claims this on the basis of an article in The Register, which I don't regard as a reliable source. I took out a different reference, which didn't make any such claim earlier. Has anyone got anything reliable? As far as I can see, google gives pages of climate crank blogs and a few sites that got their info from us. It wouldn't surprise me if he's advised Gore, but in what sense – a formal position, the only science advisor, the chief advisor? N p holmes (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The register article is junk (in terms of the science its trying to describe) and the sci-adv to Gore is just a by-blow; so I don't think its at all reliable. I've removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to Hansen himself, its incorrect. [7] He did review the slideshow and comment on it, though. (of course this could've changed since Hansen's commentary – but i doubt it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Review by NASA

The aspect of NASA review of Hansen's public statements is distorted in this article. It is standard operating procedure for all NASA civil servants to have their public statements/press releases/articles reviewed, to ensure they do not reflect poorly on the agency, and to ensure they are ITAR compliant. There is nothing ominous about this. NASA scientists are not tenured professors, and must follow the rules of NASA (which is pointed out in several of the noted references). A statement has been included to capture this key fact, that has been left out.Gabriel Tuttle (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point. Why don't you have a go at it? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted undue OOC quote

I don't think this [8] is acceptable. Certainly the inline comment isn't. Stripping a small piece of text out of a paper is OR (I'm assuming that this isn't the major point of the paper?) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The paper is at [9]. It's essentially on forcings and feedbacks. The comment points out a problem with the data in the context of discussing the match between calculated temperature record and ice core data. Far from claiming that this is a singular error, its taken as one particulary obvious example of a persistent problem. Reverted. Q Science, did you actually read the paper, or did you use a secondary source? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually read it. When you compare the Vostok temperature and CO2 timings and analysis in his paper with those based on the published data, they do not match. Dr. Hansen is trying to explain why he changed the data in only one place by 5,000 years because the entire paper is based on his new interpretation. Q Science (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can understand that. What I don't understand is how you justify pulling it out and putting it into the article. Firstly, shuffling spikes in data on the basis of mistakes in timing is commonplace. Secondly, how do you justify pulling this one thing out? Because its something that caught your eye and interested you? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with adjusting spikes. I have a problem with Dr. Hansen claiming that it is ok because his theory requires it. No other reason is given. There is no discussion of methodology problems, errors in data measurement, or anything like that. The reason he gave is exactly what I quoted. I tried very hard not to change the meaning. It also bothers me that he does not reference any paper by someone in the ice core field that supports that specific adjustment. So yes, I guess this sort of "caught my eye".

As for "pulling one thing out", another section of the wikipedia page (Fast-feedback effects) already discusses the conclusions of this same paper. I simply did not think that the information on adjusting the data should be mixed with that section. Q Science (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussing the conclusions of the paper seems quite reasonable; its saying something notable. But I still can't see the justification for pulling this one thing out. That there are dating errors is, as you agree, commonplace. Putting it in as you've done seems to imply otherwise: that Hansen has been up to something nefarious William M. Connolley (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Censorship controversy

KDP has reverted a reasonable and on-topic edit here. His claim is undue weight which is clearly laughable. The statement is 100% on topic in that section and the facts are uncontroversial since Hansen himself has acknowledged them.

Your edit summary seems to suggest that I am presenting only one side of the story on this basic fact and that I have somehow hidden Hansen's answer to the fundamental question. I have not. I imagine the interaction must have gone something like this:

Question (Issa to Hansen): How many interviews have you given in recent years?

Answer (Hansen to Issa): Over 1,400.

Please explain how the number of interviews conducted is not relevant to a discussion of claims of censorship? --GoRight (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my sentence is more on-topic than the one that follows it. What do Hansen's political views have to do with whether he is being censored or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoRight (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you should read the reference, to see why the journalist found it relevant? (and why Waxman, Issa and Hansen did as well?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I answered this question in my revert. While Issa's question may be interesting, you have to stick to due weight. And Issa already has a whole paragraph in this section. Can you explain to me why it is "laughable" to stick to due weight? We can't write everything that everyone has asked Hansen, despite it being 100% on topic and uncontroversial. Cut down on other comments if you want that one in.

As an outside comment, though, its quite plain that the question is a red herring, It has nothing to do with whether Hansen was censored or not. Most films aren't censored, and despite that, censorship in films exist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to understand my point, apparently. I am not claiming that it is laughable to stick to due weight. I am claiming that calling the introduction of a simple, non-controversial fact that is relevant to the discussion a due weight problem is what is laughable.

You say Issa has been given a "whole paragraph". This is true but it exists within a section that contains 7 paragraphs supporting Hansen. My change won't change these facts. Issa will still have one paragraph. If you disagree with making that an entire sentence then let me append it to the end of the existing sentence, although I think it reads better the way I have done it.

I suppose you can consider this measure a red herring if you want, but it actually isn't. The fact remains that Hansen has had no trouble what so ever getting his message out and his side of this issue has been more than adequately represented within that section and from multiple angles. Issa's position or that of any of Hansen's detractors has only been represented from one. If anything that is undue weight with the sign reversed. --GoRight (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not that its controversial, but instead that you are expanding a paragraph beyond the due weight. You are giving too much detail, Issa's comments are worth a sentence – but they aren't important enough in the whole picture, to merit more. What we instead should consider was to add Waxman's comments about Issa's questions. (but then again it would be too much detail). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

To expand: Issa is one voice amongst many, and considering the amount of writing that the controversy has gathered – and the percentage of this, that is dedicated to Issa – its frankly already dodgy weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is clear also that "the number of interviews conducted" is "relevant to a discussion of claims of censorship" only as a form of original research arguing that someone is not being censored because that person has given a number of interviews. A proper means of introducing such evidence would be to find an authority who states "Hansen is not being censored because he has given interviews"; of course, this might require a balancing authority arguing "Just because a person gives interviews doesn't mean he has not been censored". Rather than devote bandwidth to secondary indicia of censorship (or lack thereof) much better would be to provide evidence of the censorship itself (or lack thereof). At any rate, on the evidence given, Issa is not an expert on the number of times Hansen has given an interview, nor on censorship, so giving him two sentences is generous. rewinn (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not WP:OR to present an established fact. Let the facts speak for themselves. As to whether Issa is an expert on how many interviews Hansen has given, it doesn't matter. Hansen has confirmed the figure and he certainly should know how many interviews he has given. --GoRight (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But you do not "present an established fact"; you present a purported quote and use that to argue for the existence of a fact. In addition, Issa's expertise is certainly relevant as to whether he's a reliable source on the subject. If Hansen "confirmed the figure" then cite him. rewinn (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, at this point unless someone else expresses interest in pursuing this I shall simply let it drop. It is a minor point at best and not worth further effort from either side unless additional support shows up. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced

I removed a {{unbalanced}} tag from the section "Trials for fossil fuel chiefs". It was placed by Pete Tilman in early September but there has been no recent discussion on the subject. --TS 19:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, good. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 19:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be a wet blanket here, but please ask Tillman if he agrees first. --GoRight (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't own the article. Is that your only reason for reverting the removal of the tag, or do you believe the section to be unbalanced? --TS 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

An unbalanced tag does not make him the owner of the article. It states that he disagrees with the lack of balance in the article (or section in this case). If no further discussion has occurred as you note and I see no relevant edits to suggest that his concerns were addressed then it seems logical to conclude that he most likely still has the objections. He may have changed his mind, though, so why not ask? He is just a talk page away and he has recent contributions so he is still active (otherwise I would not have reverted).

I am also sympathetic to his position in this case as are others I would assume, but not so much so that I seek to champion his concerns for him. I will, however, support him to the extent of keeping his concerns from being brushed under the rug. --GoRight (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If he had objections presumably he would still be expressing them. Exactly how long have you been a Wikipedia editor? Unless you have substantive objections that you want to express here and now on the discussion page, don't replace the tag. The same goes for any other similar tag that somebody else might remove from a Wikipedia article in similar circumstances. --TS 21:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I do have substantive objections and I have already expressed them above. What does the length of time I have been editing here have to do with anything? --GoRight (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Beyond saying that you think Pete Tilman should be consulted, you seem to hsve expressed no opinions above about the section. If you've been editing Wikipedia for any length of time, you'll be aware that "we can't remove that tag unless X is consulted" is a non-argument. --TS 21:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My substantive objection was that he wasn't consulted. What's hard to understand about that. If you want a content related question, then fine, I simply assert whatever Tillman last said on the topic and I defer to his judgment on whether to pursue this topic any further. In any event, Tillman has now been notified of this discussion and he can decide for himself if he cares to pursue it. In the mean time the tag is no longer in the article. --GoRight (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's evident that you have no substantive objection. To reiterate: Pete Tilman does not own the article. --TS 22:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I do have a substantive objection, and I articulated it above. --GoRight (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The article was highly unbalanced. I've (temporarily) fixed it.[10] -Atmoz (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Gee, are you trying to make some kind of point? At any rate I left a friendly notice on his talk page with instructions that if he no longer cared he should just forget I mentioned it. --GoRight (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Instead of arguing about Tillman and the tag, why not discuss the article? In particular, if the article is unbalanced, what is the unbalance and what might fix it rewinn (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I was just doing Tillman the courtesy of letting him know. It was always his decision as to whether he wanted to pursue it further. As for why it was unbalanced, like I said I was sympathetic to Tillman's original position. I still am. Fixing it would be to include what he wanted. Are you willing to do that? And as for the Tony thread above, well he could have stopped after I had posted this notice but it seemed like he wanted to keep chatting so I obliged. --GoRight (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Atmoz' edit, I feel its pretty balanced right now... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 03:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I restored material removed by Atmoz -- this is a compromise article, hammered out with considerable time and effort of many contributors. As far as removing the tag, I'm fine with that. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a compromise article. The additions in that edit violates 3 WP policies (WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT, and WP:BLP), and should be removed again. -Atmoz (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the text you removed, it does seem to suffer from recentism. Not one of the items in the "Other controversies" section goes back before May, 2007. Moreover labelling them as controversies doesn't make them so. Hansen gave evidence at the Kingsnorth power station trial in 2007. What the protestors did was controversial, but what Hansen did was not. He was simply called as an expert witness. --TS 06:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to revert to that version and suggest that we discuss whether the newer material is of sufficient significance yet to be added. --TS 06:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to refer the entire edit war over to Wikipedia:Ani#Edit war erupting at James Hansen. --GoRight (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A number of different editors each reverting once is not an edit war, or at least not much of one. Let us, as I suggested, discuss the disputed content. --TS 07:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The data should definitely be left in. This is not WP:UNDUE because Dr. Hansen has gone out of his way to be seen as an activist. In fact, it can be argued that Dr. Hansen is WP:NOTABLE because of the controversies he gets involved with. I don't understand how anyone can claim WP:BLP for data that is this well sourced. As for the edits, I disagree with Tony, this now qualifies as a tag team edit war. Q Science (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Hansen is a world-class scientist, and he is notable for being a scientist. He is not notable for being controversial. If he wasn't a world-class scientist, nobody would give a crap what he said—except if he was a septic. If you don't think BLP applies, have a looksee at Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism and praise. (If you want to apply tag-team, it works in both directions.) -Atmoz (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[late chime-in] No one is questioning that Hansen is (or perhaps was?) a first-rate scientist. It's also uncontroversial that in recent years he's stepped up the volume (some would say too much) on his self-assigned activist role -- see for example Why Is James Hansen So Worried? and Science Group Erred Giving Hansen Top Honor, both by Andrew Freedman at the Washington Post. I think these well-sourced criticisms of Hansen should be incorporated into our article. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is, that all I originally wanted was for Tillman to be asked if he cared if the tag was removed and you turned that into a wholesale deletion of stable material. --GoRight (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because it's stable doesn't mean it belongs in the article. And since my argument is based in policy, and yours is based on a false interpretation of WP:V that anything verifiable must be included in an article, I'm inclined to agree with mine. I think that I was correct in removing the material for giving undue weight to current events, as opposed to the rest of his distinguished career. -Atmoz (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit war. Whatever you mean by "tag team", it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. And could I ask everybody to use English? Peppering your sentences with buzzwords is not good for legibility. --TS 08:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is at least a teensy edit war. For once, I find myself on the Dark Side: the material removed may well be unbalanced, but it is interesting and current, and it does represent Hansens views. The most doubtful is the temperature correction stuff, which is really trivia; but it was splashed over all the papers so perhaps its useful too. Maybe we could trim the sections a bit. Better, for balance, would be to expand the sections on his scientific work and career William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Better, for balance, would be to expand the sections on his scientific work and career." – Agreed. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that at least the testimony at the Kingsnorth power station trial should be removed from any section labelled with the word "controversies". Hansen gave expert evidence at a trial, looking at Google News I see a paucity of reliable sources mentioning the fact, and I don't think giving evidence at a trial is normally considered at all controversial. --TS 13:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit by GoRight

I've reverted an edit by GoRight on grounds related to the Biographies of living persons policy. There are doubts about whether the edit properly represents what James Hansen said. I would prefer to see Hansen's actual words used, especially if we put something in quotes. --TS 18:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm. Follow the reference (which is different from the first one but was referred to by it). The part I have in quotes is exactly the part that was in quotes in the lead-in to the reference. If you read the article itself it is obvious that this was, in fact, his position. Again, removing properly sourced material is disruptive. --GoRight (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)The reversion was correct. The material attributed to Hansen was misquoted. [11] He actually said "We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead." Hansen is not quoted in that article saying anything about flooded cities, species extinction, or climate catastrophes. -Atmoz (talk) 18:55, 2 February 200said. If it fails, global disaster – melted sea caps, flooded cities, species extinctions and spreading deserts – awaits mankind.

"We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."}}

If you prefer this version of the description of the potential impacts he seemingly expressed in this interview, we can substitute that as well. --GoRight (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer us to use his words, not those of an interviewer. Does that seem strange to you? --TS 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What you'd prefer to use is entirely irrelevant. What the policies direct us to use is what is important. This is a secondary WP:RS which is supposed to be preferred in these circumstances, is it not? Wikipedia policy actually argues against the use of primary sources which a direct quote is, in preference for reflecting what reliable secondary sources have to say. So in this case, that ar to see. As for the flooded cities and such, those were not in quotes (in either the article or my edit) but the article itself clearly attributes those views to him. I didn't make up the text, I took it straight from the article itself. Are you asserting that the lead, written by the author of the piece, is not an accurate reflection of what the article says? If so I suggest that you take it up with the author of the piece, not me. But striking the material is WP:OR on your part. I have a WP:RS that directly backs my text. Where is your WP:RS to support your claim that this is a misquote or a misrepresentation? If you have such a thing, please feel free to add that to the article for balance.

Removal of properly source material is disruptive.

If you question the quote in the lead, then let us use the one provided by Atmoz. I don't really care which. Here is the relevant section of the article being referenced:

"I have been described as the grandfather of climate change. In fact, I am just a grandfather and I do not want my grandchildren to say that grandpa understood what was happening but didn't make it clear," Hansen said last week. Hence his warning to Barack Obama, who will be inaugurated as US president on Tuesday. His four-year administration offers the world a last chance to get things right, Hansen said. If it fails, global disaster – melted sea caps, flooded cities, species extinctions and spreading deserts – awaits mankind.

"We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."

If you prefer this version of the description of the potential impacts he seemingly expressed in this interview, we can substitute that as well. --GoRight (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer us to use his words, not those of an interviewer. Does that seem strange to you? --TS 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What you'd prefer to use is entirely irrelevant. What the policies direct us to use is what is important. This is a secondary WP:RS which is supposed to be preferred in these circumstances, is it not? Wikipedia policy actually argues against the use of primary sources which a direct quote is, in preference for reflecting what reliable secondary sources have to say. So in this case, that argues that the bit about the flooded cities and such is actually the better material to be using because it was filtered by an independent secondary source. --GoRight (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added back the bits he did say, whilst leaving out the bits he didn't. Is that OK? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That sort of depends. Do you feel that the spirit of your point in this edit summary should apply equally in all WP:BLPs regardless of ideological POV? --GoRight (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly think we should always use a person's actual words when we quote them, rather than somebody else's. Despite GoRight's claim to the contrary, I'm quite certain that this really does matter. The BLP is what makes it matter. --TS 20:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not against using his own words, in fact I offered such a compromise above. I consider your WP:ABF to be not in line with WP:CIV. Nor have I argued that this "doesn't matter". I have argued that the policies direct us to use reliable secondary sources whenever possible. This source is one such source. I have also argued, similar to WMC, that if this is a WP:RS the content therein should be usable as is.

Tony, would you also argue then that we should be removing text like this:

Hansen notes that in determining responsibility for climate change, the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate is not determined by current emissions, but by accumulated emissions over the lifetime of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. By this measure the U.K. is still the largest single cause of climate change, followed by the U.S. and Germany, even though its current emissions are surpassed by the Peoples Republic of China.

in the paragraph just above? After all, those are not his words, are they? This argument seems rather self-serving for a particular POV. --GoRight (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, this whole discussion is rather silly. You all know that this is a valid source for the material I added. It's not even a stretch to make that claim. The piece isn't even an op-ed, but an actual story based on a direct interview. Does anyone have any reason to believe that this secondary source is biased or unreliable? --GoRight (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the source does not quote Hansen as saying what you have quoted him as saying. That is to say, you put into this article words which Hansen did not say, in such a manner as to give the impression that Hansen said them. Please check the Verifiability policy and its stricter sister, the Biographies of living persons policy. Or just use your commonsense. --TS 20:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Try to keep up with the conversation and the edits. We have moved beyond this point. I have not reverted the original text and I have not objected to using his more complete quote from the body of the article, so why are you still harping on the original text?

"The problem is that the source does not quote Hansen as saying what you have quoted him as saying." – Please be more specific. What have I quoted him as saying that the article didn't quote him as saying? --GoRight (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a quote from Hansen: "and then explained why President Obama's administration is the last chance to avoid flooded cities, species extinction and climate catastrophe." You took the journalists interpretation of what would happen, and put it down as if they were Hansen's words. Simple as that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC) [interestingly you seem to know this (or at least somewhat acknowledge it) here ]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And where did I claim that was a direct quote? Did I have it in quotation marks? Are we not allowed to include what independent journalists from reliable sources write about the subjects of a WP:BLP? This is a poster child example of using a secondary source so I fail to see why you should object. We are supposed to report what the WP:RS says, and not selectively so as is being done here. I thought you were against cherry picking which is why I addressed your comment in the first place. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"put it down as if they were Hansen's words" – First of all, I didn't put them down as anything other than what the lead of the article directly asserts "he explains why President Obama's administration is the last chance to avoid flooded cities, species extinction and climate catastrophe." To whom does the "he" in that statement refer? That is a direct quote from the article and you are claiming I have somehow worked my nefarious magic on it to make it say something it doesn't, when obviously I didn't. --GoRight (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In the edit that I reverted [12], with the words "Hansen has stated," you quoted Hansen as saying:

"We have only four years left to act on climate change – America has to lead"

Those are not the words in which he was quoted in the cited source, which were:

"We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."

It's strikingly obvious that those are different sequences of words, despite the superficial similarities. I'm surprised that I'm still, over three hours later, desperately trying to get you to look at two sequences of alphabetical characters and acknowledge that they are not identical. --TS 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And as I said in my first reply, go look at the lead for the reference. Here is an exact character for character copy of the lead for that source:

'We have only four years left to act on climate change – America has to lead'

Jim Hansen is the 'grandfather of climate change' and one of the world's leading climatologists. In this rare interview in New York, he explains why President Obama's administration is the last chance to avoid flooded cities, species extinction and climate catastrophe

Do you see those little characters surrounding what I had in quotes? Please do a little research on what those are called and what they are for. So, as I said, what have I quoted him as saying that the article did not quote him as saying? --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This argument is unproductive. You will not convince me, or I suspect anybody else, that Hansen said other than the actual words quoted by the journalist in the body of the piece. --TS 22:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether I have a direct quote of Hansen saying those words. The issue is that I have a valid secondary WP:RS that says he said those words. You're still behind with following the conversation. Stop fixating on the original quoted part which is now all moot because I am not arguing with the current version of the quote as added by WMC. I'm fine with it. Really.

The only thing we are arguing about now is the bit on the end that wasn't quoted (see above discussion with KDP).

I have a valid secondary WP:RS which directly asserts that Hansen "explain[ed] why President Obama's administration is the last chance to avoid flooded cities, species extinction and climate catastrophe." Whether you or anyone else thinks this is true or whether you believe that Hansen actually said such a thing is actually irrelevant from a policy perspective. Perhaps you should actually read that Verifiability policy you pointed out a while back. In fact, just read the very first sentence and get back to me. --GoRight (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. The source you cite quotes Hansen directly. Those are the exact words he used. If a sub-editor then paraphrased the words in a headline, then we could conceivably report that the newspaper paraphrased Hansen's words, but I'm at a loss to see why we would do that when we have their own report of his actual words. --TS 11:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I have said 3 times now that I am no longer arguing that I want to include the shortened version of his quote from the lead. I am not asking to include that and I have not been for quite some time (see above "If you question the quote in the lead, then let us use the one provided by Atmoz. I don't really care which."). From that point forward everything you have been and apparently still are arguing with became a completely moot (see adjective definition number 2) point.

As far as the actual DIRECT QUOTE of what Hansen said (i.e. the text that WMC added here) I am completely fine with the current version. The conversation is currently stalled here in KDP's thread. --GoRight (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're fine with the current version, why are you continuing to argue about something-or-other and accusing me of being obtuse? Are you just arguing for the sake of it? --TS 19:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"accusing me of being obtuse" – I didn't accuse you of anything, I merely asked a question for clarification.

"Are you just arguing for the sake of it?" – No, as should be evident from my previous reply. --GoRight (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here let me make another specific proposal to try an move past the current impasse. The current objection to the remaining text of my original edit seems to be that it appears to state that Hansen said something specific. Let me attempt to remedy that as follows:

In describing her interview with Hansen Robin McKie writes that he had explained why President Obama's administration is the last chance to avoid flooded cities, species extinction and climate catastrophe, and within the article she quotes him as saying "We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead." *

* Robin McKie (18 January 2009). "'We have only four years left to act on climate change – America has to lead'". The Guardian. Retrieved 02 February 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Is that more acceptable? --GoRight (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we need any more on that particular interview than we already have? This article isn't about interviews Hansen has given to the Guardian. --TS 20:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes since we need to reflect the content of the article in an unbiased fashion while maintaining a summary style. The author's own summary seems best for that purpose, would you not agree? --GoRight (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the bias in the current version? Please explain. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It presents an incomplete picture of what the author indicates transpired throughout the entire interview and it is therefore simply biased by omission. I believe a summary of the full content of the interview would benefit our readers. The author indicates that this is a rare interview (you must remember that this man has been muzzled) and so given the notability of the subject we should make use of as much of the content of the interview as possible, again while maintaining a summary style. The purpose of this article is not simply to provide a list of direct quotes, but is instead to summarize what reliable third-party sources are reporting. So again, who better than the author to offer such a summary of their interview with Hansen? --GoRight (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Now let me try to explain why i believe its a bad idea. What we are interested in here, is James Hansen, not what other people think James Hansen is thinking. The whole section raises a red flag to me, not because of the estimation that GW could/will lead to these consequences, since i'm rather certain that Hansen sincerely believes this to be the case, and the article does state this, but it is the timescale of 4 years that concern me. I frankly do not believe that Hansen has stated this, since it doesn't in any way or form "sync"/"scan" with both earlier and later statements (or advocacy) from him. Obama only has 4 years – but we have more.

That this is written in the blurb for the complete article, doesn't make it a summary, or even the most important thing, but instead it is "bait" to get the reader to go on reading, and its rather common in both the headline and the blurb to write things just a tad more interesting than what the content really is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I want to thank you for at least giving this a thoughtful reply. (I mean this sincerely and not as some sort of back-handed dig.)

On the four year timescale concern, I understand your concern. While I prefer to stay with the author's own words (strictly to avoid accusations that I am somehow spinning what they wrote) I wouldn't be against making some small adjustment to clarify that point. Could you perhaps suggest such a correction to proposal above? I am thinking of something along the lines of "the last chance to avoid the eventuality of flooded cities, species extinction and climate catastrophe". I am certainly open to other alternatives.

As to whether the lead in to the article constitutes a summary or not, I think it is the closest thing we have that is written by the author and that easily fits the space constraints you are likely to allow me. You may be right that it is meant to sensationalize things a bit, but over-all it provides a reasonable overview of what she thought she heard in the actual interview and it is likely to be the one "take-away" point she felt was most important. I claim this because she knows that the reader is quite possibly only going to read the lead-in and so she has to make her main point there. I accept that you could see it differently. Do you consider this to be a fatal flaw? --GoRight (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As I think I've already remarked,this article isn't about the interviews of James Hansen. The significance of the Observer interview was its emphasis on the need of the new President to take a lead during his first term. Hansen's views on the consequences of unchecked global warming are elaborated in depth in the article already. --TS 21:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"As I think I've already remarked, this article isn't about the interviews of James Hansen." – I'm not quite sure what you believe the relevance of this is. The subject of this article is James Hansen. As such it is about the man and his views on any number of topics. Interviews are a particularly important means of identifying what those views actually are.

"The significance of the Observer interview was its emphasis on the need of the new President to take a lead during his first term." – That certainly was one significance, but possibly not the most significant. As the article itself states Hansen has been the subject of concerted efforts to restrict his ability to get his message out. Now that he is again free to speak we should give our readers the full benefit of his current and most up-to-date views as expressed in this rare interview. --GoRight (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's what we've done. Which of his other opinions expressed in the interview, that have previously been censored, do you think we should include? --TS 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I defer to the author on what the most important message in the interview actually was. This is why I think we should prefer the author's summary as I have included it above. --GoRight (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. The author seemed to think that the "four years" comment was most important. --TS 23:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But the author also felt that the rest was important too, obviously, or she wouldn't have included it in her summary. --GoRight (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Having heard no further objections from KDP I will assume that he finds my suggestion for further refinement at least minimally acceptable. I am certain he will correct me on this point if necessary. With that suggestion in place the current proposal would become:

In describing her interview with Hansen Robin McKie writes that he had explained why President Obama's administration is the last chance to avoid the inevitability of flooded cities, species extinction and climate catastrophe, and within the article she quotes him as saying "We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead." *

* Robin McKie (18 January 2009). "'We have only four years left to act on climate change – America has to lead'". The Guardian. Retrieved 02 February 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Are there any remaining objections to this latest version? --GoRight (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not. You have beaten this horse to death at least 5 times. Perhaps you should sit down and read the arguments again? See for instance my rather recent comment concerning it raising a redflag. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So if I understand your position correctly, you admit that the text matches what the author wrote, you admit that the text matches Hansen's actual view on the potential implications, but you are stuck on the 4 year time frame aspect of it. I asked you to make a suggestion as to how we could address that aspect but none has been forthcoming. What am I to make of that? Is it your assertion that there is no possible way to address this point that will meet with your satisfaction? Surely there must be something that would address this concern so that we can make the full summary available to our readers. --GoRight (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not notable. High chance of misrepresentation. Should summarize. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But this was a rare interview with a highly notable individual. He is the "grandfather of climate change". It's rarity is what makes this interview so notable. The only red flag you mention is the possible confusion over the time frame for the consequences you agree Hansen believes will occur. Can you honestly think of no way that we can clarify that the time frame for the consequences is longer that the 4 years? Honestly? --GoRight (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing rare about this "interview", please see above for figures by Issa on how often Hansen gets interviewed by the press. Its by the way not an interview... the journalist talked to Hansen, wrote an article about him, and included some direct quotes. (an interview is a dialogue). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

:) Hansen claims he was muzzled. We indicate that clearly in the article. So any interview must be rare by definition, no? This interview is current which also makes it particularly notable since it his more recent attempt to get his message out after having the Bush administration shackles removed. Besides, the claim of this being a rare interview is not mine, but that of the independent third party journalist.

No, you are making a basic logical error. I gave you an analogy above: Some films are censored, most are not. If Hansen hadn't been muzzled (and he was – that is what the conclusion of the senate committee was. Even if it can only be proven to in one instance), then the number of interviews would quite probably be higher than 1400. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Its by the way not an interview... the journalist talked to Hansen, wrote an article about him, and included some direct quotes." – The author met with Hansen, asked him questions, listened to his responses and reported what she heard. That sounds like an interview to me. In fact the author even refers to it as an interview, should she not know if it was an interview or not? That fact that she didn't report what she heard in the format you refer to doesn't make it less of an interview.

Yes. The journalist met Hansen – he did interview him. But his article isn't an interview, most articles are done this way, but most articles aren't interviews. Interviews are a special format. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

However, given your apparent unwillingness to try and find common ground here and given the discussion below regarding recent edit warring I have decided that it is in the best interests of the article that I not continue to flog this poor horse any longer. --GoRight (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Willingness goes both ways. You've btw. already got your common ground: WMC's compromise which no one disagreed with (right in the middle of no inclusion, and your excessive (imho) inclusion). But I do agree that it has been flogged for too long. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do recognize that WMC was making an offer of compromise with that edit, and for that I thank him. Still, I would have preferred that we also include some hint of what you acknowledge are Hansen's actual views on the consequences of inaction (sans the implication of a 4 year time frame which I tried in good faith to address). Moving on ... --GoRight (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Four years to save the planet, again?

Well, here is a second source for the 4 year time frame comments from Hansen, Christopher Booker at the Telegraph writes:

"At last, after years when they could not speak openly on this subject, chirped Ms Watts, "scientists calculate that President Obama has just four years to save the world". She failed to explain (although she was later forced to clarify this on her blog) that the only scientist to say anything so silly was Dr James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose utterances on climate change have lately become so wild and extreme that they have made him a laughing stock. (He was last week publicly disowned by his former supervisor Dr John Theon, who said that Hansen's unscientific claims had been an embarrassment to Nasa ever since he joined Al Gore in whipping up panic over global warming back in 1988.)"

Not yet ready to resume the flogging, but if more references show up it will be harder to argue that this is not notable. --GoRight (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's another reference by Vivian Song at the Edmonton Sun who cites the original article and writes:

"In forceful language, NASA's top climate scientist issued a stark and urgent message to Obama last week, warning the new president he has only four years to act on climate change or risk fuelling an unstoppable wave of environmental catastrophe.

"(Obama's) four-year administration offers the world a last chance to get things right," said James Hansen in an interview with the U.K. newspaper The Observer. "If it fails, global disaster -- melted sea caps, flooded cities, species extinctions and spreading deserts -- awaits mankind."

Hansen is the director of the Goddard Institute for Space and an adjunct professor of Earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University's Earth Institute. He's often referred to as "the grandfather of climate change" for having sounded the alarm at congressional hearings in the 1980s and for being a prominent critic of industrial emissions."

Hmmm. --GoRight (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiPedia distinguished from WikiNews

This is an encyclopedia, not a news aggregator. One should be quite sparing in what appears to be news reporting. Perhaps the fuller quotes would be appropriate for WikiNews. rewinn (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Who's trying to turn it into a news aggregator? A whole article cut down to one sentence is hardly excessive. Besides, I thought reliable news sources was one of the primary things we were supposed to be using. Is this not correct? --GoRight (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)