Talk:Naomi Oreskes/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 15:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected

Cleaned a bit, excessive red and removed a bunch of the controversy stuff - covered elsewhere (linked), and this is about the scientist - she is more than the controversy raised by skeptics. Removed cleanup tag - hopefully not premature on that. Hey, articles always can use more, and that tag was ugly :-) Vsmith 03:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Much better. --Sln3412 23:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just read the article in the National Post.

You guys locked the article!

Shocka! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.198.151 (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming link paragraph and link

  • Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it. [1]

Wouldn't it be better if that were from the essay? I don't see the point of linking to forums, either.--Sln3412 22:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I overlooked that link, removed it and reworded a bit - need to check for accuracy now. Vsmith 00:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, the source of her search she mentions in the essay is the "ISI database" This is now all contained at http://scientific.thomson.com/isilinks/ and seems to have become considerably more difficult to correlate. --Sln3412 02:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
In the essay,[2], she reported her analyses of 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 that were contained in an ISI database, and then concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view while none directly dissented from it.
This is the original paragraph for reference:
  • "The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9)."

[edit] Science and Society section

Yes, I'm having a hard time rewriting it. Just saying "global warming skeptics" isn't really correct, they're more skeptical about the consensus part of it from what I've seen. The essay does show that peer-reviewed journal abstracts considered as being about climate change (note 9) agree with the statements of the organizations that use them. Which is perfectly true. I believe they are more challenging the study and the conclusions. It's become part of the controversy on the subject as a whole. And she has responded to criticisms such as these in an editorial in a major paper.

Taking a version of that and inserting it to more accurately describe the role of the essay in the controversy, which is why it's noteworthy about the person herself. Please edit appropriately to correct, or discuss why it's not neutral or factual here please. Sln3412 01:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, only global warming skeptics have challenged her study's conclusions. The only two critics cited are vocal GW skeptics. The article needs to reflect this. Also, the way her study is folded into language about the controversy makes it a case of teaching the controversy. Most of the controversy is contrived to further a political, ideological agenda; I don't see any reason we should help them by perpetuating it. FeloniousMonk 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, this is a biographical article - the focus should be on the person, the controversy details are well covered elsewhere and needn't be repeated in detail here. Vsmith 02:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with that last except it seems likely that one of the reasons, if not the reason, that there is a Wikipedia article on Oreskes is because of the AAAS essay. From the standpoint of the general public interest, my guess is this is the most interesting thing in the article. So I think there certainly should be a section on the essay in this article. And once we have that, unfortunately the controversy associated with that essay seeps in. I do agree that there is no need to rehash every detail of the controversy here, as there is similar language on Benny Peiser and Richard Lindzen. Instead of repeating the same text on all three pages (and I'm sure it is also elsewhere), what about moving the details of this particular controversy from all three pages into a section at global warming controversy? -- Deville (Talk) 04:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems notable about the people in the controversy over the essay and the responses. So to me, any bio of people involved should mention it at least in enough detail to know what role they have. I attempted to gather as many scources as possible, and most of what I found on the Internet was mostly from her faculty page and the citations from the Science article and Washington Post op-ed about the responses to it and blog posts on the subject. I was not familiar about her (nor Peiser) until I came here and started researching. I then decided to write a bio so there'd be one that people could come and look her name up, and see the references to what everyone is involved with. The one on Peiser, (which I did not start but later tried to clean up as best I could), is mostly from his faculty page, CCNet, and his letter about his confrontation with an associate editor from Science. The only place I found the correction from the body of the essay as published ('climate change' versus 'global climate change' as the search term) being mentioned is on his letter page (as a reply from Science to the issue it's corrected in, Jan. 14 2005) and on the blogs. I hope I haven't given anyone the impression I agree or disagree with either or both of them. I have no opinion, but what I think is not important anyway.
I have seen the essay by Oreskes quoted in many places here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and thought it might be insightful to mention it all in the context of the disagreement, just for information. Things might be far better served to mention all this in the controversy page, yes. An opinion essay on science and society published in Science and followed by a Washington Post editorial on criticisms. I'm just trying to accurately, fairly and neutrally discuss what we're talking about. She made statements in her published work, followed by more statements in another published work in response to citicism of the first, both of which were involving the findings and reporting of a lack of disagreement in the abstracts of peer-reviewed published work.
The links to the statements by others that disagree should explain the rest of the story for those so inclined. That's the neutrality (and balance that I think neutrality means, even if the text is dry or controversial) part of the section. None of this is meant to be negative, and should be stated as what is happening as flatly and matter of factly as possible.Sln3412 05:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Odd how the page becomes protected only *after* contentious, unsupported changes are made into an emerging consensus. Wow. Just wow.Grazen (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial in response to criticism

She has publicly stated herself that she is aware of this general dispute on the subject, which she herself reports in the editorial, and also that it is larger than just two people. She has been in contact with at least members of Deltoid, and there and elsewhere have quoted emails from her responding to questions about the issue, in regards to clarifying the research.

But more so, she wrote that very public editorial in the The Washington Post[3] that she is aware of the dispute (including the fact the arguments are "...not to be found in scientific literature..." and says "...a few noisy skeptics..." who are ..."not even scientists..." Which is more than two. The Post editorial isn't specific with names usually, although she does specifially name Lindzen, otherwise the points are generalized. But it uses these terms, and I quote:

"Despite recent allegations to the contrary..." "There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature..." "...A handful of scientists have raised questions... But this is quibbling about the details." "Because of a few noisy skeptics -- most of whom are not even scientitsts..." "...professor Richard Lindzen dismissed..." "You can always find someone, somewhere to disagree.." "The chatter of skeptics..."

And the editorial is about the consensus, although she does not seem to differentiate in the editorial between "scientific consensus" and "uncertainty of global warming": "There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it." The editorial in paragraph 4 also restates the research she did for the original essay, so the review of abstracts and the conclusion is given in both the essay as well as the editorial.

On that basis, I believe her writing publicly in response to criticisms makes the conclusions (in the essay and editorial,) the criticisms, and the response to the criticisms all part of her biographical information. Sln3412 19:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Climate Change" vs. "Global Climate Change"

This article seems to attempt to imply that Benny Peiser was in error when he searched for a different term than Oreskes

"It was subsequently revealed that his search criteria were not the same as Oreskes's, using different search terms and including articles which had not been peer reviewed, which resulted in his finding more abstracts than Oreskes had."

This is a gross mischaracterization. In Beyond the Ivory Tower Dr. Oreskes claimed that her search term was "climate change" here is the excerpt from the paper "listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change"". It was only after Peiser failed to replicate her study that Oreskes clarified that here search term hadn't been "climate change" but "global climate change" which greatly limited the number of abstracts. This is an important fact that needs to be known. We should not discredit someone when the fault was with the other party.GTTofAK (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You give only part of the story. Peiser was aware of that, and aware that he still had the "wrong" number of abstracts. He assumed that he was right and Oreskes had made some mistake; but he was wrong: he had included too general a search field; so the text is correct. He also made a pigs ear of reading the abstracts (see deltoid) but thats another matter William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
One half one tenth what does it matter? It is till misleading. This is an encyclopedia. Any inaccuracy or misleading information or wording needs to be corrected. Peiser corrected his term after Dr. Oreskes clarified her search term. The error laid with her not him. The field i.e. limiting the search to scientific article is another matter but was not nearly as significant. The term increases the set by thousands. The field only a hundred or so. What I am going to say now I fully expect you to delete as this is a warning to you as a Christmas present. You sir as a Wikipedia admin need to be more careful in what you do here. Being involved in attacks on living individuals is a dangerous thing. Your instance to keep this mis characterization boarders on libel. Wikipedia protects itself from libel in 2 main ways. First and foremost is separability. There is no connection between the authors and Wikipedia. Second is the fact that most libel suits are filed in US courts where libel laws are very week from the point of view of the plaintiff. You sir are a Wikipedia admin. There is no separability between you and Wikipedia what you write or defend reflects on Wikipedia and can drag the entire apparatus into a libel suit that it cannot separate itself from as it could if you were a normal contributor. Second, you are British. A smart man looking to sue you for libel would do so in Briton, where libel laws are among the strictest in the western world. I'm 100% certain that neither yourself nor Wikipedia would want ever want to get dragged into a libel suit filed in an English court of law. My advice to you is to be far more careful what you say here about others.GTTofAK (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree, the issue as to whether Oreskes attempted to mislead others by her mischaracterization of her sources is important to the biography of the person. Her report, on the basis of the mischaracterization, received a *lot* of attention, until Peiser called her on it. It's pretty black and white IMHO. Grazen (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Recent Edit War

I should NOT be reading about content disputes on Wikipedia in my Saturday National Post!

  • There is a existing process for resolving content. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for full details.
  • I've already seen and dealt with a case regarding content disputes that have made it to national media (see the Pat Binns dispute). Enough is enough especially when the edit war over this page gets on my daily newspaper! If I continue to see a edit war, I will recommend this page be protected, until we sort out what's going on. I've already contacted an admin, and I suggest the two of you cool it off.

ThePointblank (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question doesn't seem to want to discuss his edits. But keeps putting in information that is prohibited by amongst others WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:SPS. The onus of convincing others that their contributions uphold these guidelines lies on the contributer. If you have anything specific that you find questionable about the reverts - then i suggest that you comment on the specifics. And please don't tag the regulars. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I had a look at the following revisions [4] [5].

These are my thoughts on the issue:

  • The editor in question is a accredited news reporter on the National Post, who commentates on environmental issues. Therefore, he has expert knowledge on the issue at hand.
  • The editor in question also appears to have been in contact with Benny Peiser. This adds accreditation on the issue at hand. However, I suggest we need to see something like a transcript or perhaps the exact e-mail regarding what was said by Benn Peiser on what he clarified upon.
  • One of the sources[6] is published on a media source that is reputable (ABC News in Australia). As such, this source stands.
  • I've located the source for one of the edits you have undone:
“ The effect of Oreskes error, according to the Majority Fact of the Day from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (July 24, 2006), was that "her supposedly comprehensive research excluded about 11,000 papers" or "more than 90% of the papers" dealing with climate change. It also cited Peiser's view that “Oreskes entire argument is flawed as the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.’” ”

[7]
As it is official government source, this section therefore STANDS, and a edit has been done to reflect this.

  • If there is any need to further clarify the claims of Benny Peiser, Benny Peiser should directly contact Wikipedia himself.

ThePointblank (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok - let me try to respond in order.
  • The editor might be a journalist - he never identified as such (even if i suspected) - but is still under the same rules and guidelines as everyone else. That means adherence to WP:RS,WP:SPS and WP:BLP. You do not get more credibility or lenience for being a journalist. I significantly contest that the journalist has expert knowledge on this subject. I've read his articles.
  • He may have been in contact with Peiser - i really do not know (or care). We need reliable sources! An editors word is worth nothing.
  • I agree completely. The ABC source was one I introduced to this article (long time ago). And i have neither removed it or changed it. (in case you didn't notice - the section was moved from another part in the article).
  • No this is not an "official government source" - it is a publication from the majority party at a specific committee. Its a political and partisan comment on a scientific work of a specific person. That is specifically ruled out in WP:BLP.
  • Peiser would have to go through a reliable source.
Now to comment further - Peisers comment on Naomi Oreskes paper in Nature is a self published source. To be more specific: it hasn't been printed in a reliable source (in fact it was rejected by Nature), but only on Peisers own website. Despite this we include a mention of his critique, because its notable. It is presented in due weight and in accordance with WP:BLP.
The edits of Mr. Solomon changed that - and introduced a significant bias towards an unpublished critique of a scientific paper, and (might i mention) a critique that the author (Peiser), according to the ABC source - doesn't support anymore. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Peiser's paper has been reprinted in an endless variety of sources, including the WSJ, the Senate EPW papers, and many others. It certainly passes muster on those grounds alone; the mere fact that so many here are hotly debating its wording proves its significance.FellGleaming (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Both of which are unreliable sources for this. The first is only reliable to Lindzen's opinion, and the second is reliable only to the opinion of Morano and Inhofe. I have to admit that your last one made me laugh... No, sorry. The amount of debate in the blogosphere or other unreliable sources, does not make something significant. If you really want you can note Lindzen and Inhofe's opinion on their respective articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the link has been posted, but the article referencing this page is Wikipedia's Zealots. Joshdboz (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He didn't even get Kim's gender right. So much for fact checking... Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
As if this was an indication of anything... It kinda happens. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm impressed that it does... specifically as he makes a point out of it in the article "She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia" - had he done any decent amount of research on my userpage and profile as he says in his article - then its in rather plain sight there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an extremely silly point. a) He got nothing "wrong", and simply pointed out the sex and real name of any Wiki editor is indeterminant (which is true, regardless of what our user pages claim). B) Your gender has nothing to do with the point at hand, c) Even had he made a mistake, getting the gender wrong of a random Wikipedian says nothing about the rest of the article.FellGleaming (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Please get back to adressing the article, instead of the editors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
He got any number of things hopelessly wrong. Perhaps most laughable is no person is better placed to judge informed dissent on climate change than Benny Peiser - Peiser can't even read abstracts correctly William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Another rather interesting detail - he starts by using the name tabletop, which was a user who has made exactly one edit (not related to Solomons at all) here [8], and then he continues on to claim that he is me.
Hmmm - rather sloppy research methinks. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You'd think "This user is male" on your userpage would be a hint, but maybe that's too obscure for some people. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
"Kim" is a gender-neutral name and userboxes can kind of blur into each other. Especially as many Wikipedians just fill their page with userboxes that may or may not be valid to them. I do agree though that the way it works you do need something proving a claim like "X said Y to me."--T. Anthony (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the news article, it appears to have been wp:or, and theres certainly no need to include opinions from every odd person that happen to have one either. But I think everyone would benefit a lot if whoever is about to revert an edit takes a minute to check sources and discuss things first. Especially with new users who might not understand/know wikipedia policies. And wp:or clearly isn't obvious to a lot of people. If new users are met with some respect and understanding from the pro-"wiki zealots" (to use the newspaper term ;)) then maybe they bother to stay around awhile and be useful instead of writing about how horrible wikipedia is in their national newspapers. Not that I don't understand it must be a pain editing climate change and other politically charged articles. --Apis 16:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your sentiment but am not sure the usual considerations apply here. The actions look a bit like a setup, though one can never say for certain. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim has a gigantic E-peen. Look at how riled up he is getting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.240.179 (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Original research? Well, here's the funny thing: if this reporter had written his article about Peiser, and had then become a wikipedia user without revealing his real name and sourced his own article, there would be absolutely no controversy and no allegations of "original research". Am I right? His main fault was that he was too honest. To truly push a particular agenda on Wikipedia, you have to know how to play the game. Fortunately for Wikipedia, most partisan agencies (as far as we know) haven't figured out the bureaucracy here yet and do it clumsily, making obvious POV edits and leaving behind revealing IP addresses. But as time goes on, this will change. The traditional news media was also more trustworthy at one time... Esn (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Very ironic that the idea that wikipedia has no rules and is nothing more than the POV pushing of fanatics protects us in the end. Sure makes for some ridiculous disputes though. Wrad (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you are in fact not right. Op-Ed's and Editorials are inherently not very reliable sources. In general you can measure the reliability of a source, on how much review it goes through. (editorial or scientific). Thats the reason that peer-reviewed articles are generally considered high on this spectrum, and personal opinions (as op-eds and editorials are), generally very low. Of course there are other factors, such as the publication source etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
which circles back to Oreskes' work and her mischaracterization of the research, both the terms used to generate her results and the types of arguments. It would appear, and hear me out, possible to a so called skeptic, that she reverse engineered the search terms to generate the response that she was looking for, and then mischaracterized her terms. Yuck. She was called out on it and busted, and now people want to ignore or delete the comments of the gentleman that discovered her so-called errors. Sigh. Grazen (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This comes to your own point of view. Was she caught out? Peiser and Solomon thinks so. But Peiser was also caught out, and has admitted so (in numerous places). Has Peiser found anything that really breaks Oreskes paper? Not according to other sources (who are just as unpublished as Peisers)... etc etc.
Its a can of worms if we allow self published sources and other less reliable sources to state what their opinion on subjects.... Its going to raise havock on 9/11, evolution, big bang, articles. And its not going to be for the benefit of those articles - which is exactly the reason that WP has rules and guidelines on this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This argument right here is exactly why Wikipedia is the leading source of automatic zeros given in high school and college classes. Is there no better way to discuss such matters that to go off of an arbitrary set of "guidelines" that only make sense to you trolls? Wikipedia; the 1940s Germany of the Internet. Morte42 (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia guideline that befits the situation: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. It is at WP:IGNORE. It seems certain people like to be Wikilawyers regarding certain policies in an attempt to squash what might be very legitimate debate. Remember that Wikipedia is a open encyclopedia; anyone can edit and contribute to it, but the actions of a few can very easily ruin the Wikipedia experience for others, and cause a black-eye for Wikipedia and the Wiki-community in general. ThePointblank (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your insight ThePointblank, I'm not sure I agree that it's beneficial for Wikipedia to encourage new users to ignore discussion, or not to try achieve consensus? And I'd prefer if you didn't acuse me of 'wikilawering' or 'squashing legitimate debate'. (And yes I agree that the actions of a few can very easily ruin the Wikipedia experience for others). Thank you. --Apis (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't directly referring to you, but the entire process of ignoring rules when needed is described here: WP:WIARM. There is a time and a place to ignore rules to improve Wikipedia or to correct grievous errors contain in articles. ThePointblank (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I honestly think you are doing both the new users and Wikipeida a great disservice by telling them that, If you feel there is any 'grievous errors' here then why haven't you taken part in the debate, you've been around after all, and how about you yourself ignore all rules and make some improvements? I really don't think the infobox would have caused any dispute... --Apis (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I am arguing, ignore rules when necessary, but not necessarily ignore the rules. In short, exercise caution and judgement when you ignore the rules in improving Wikipedia. ThePointblank (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Which is a pretty bad idea on biographies, where many cases where you'd ignore rules would clash immediately with the WP:BLP rules. Its a good advice for regular articles though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It might be worth noting that the page got locked for edit waring a few hours later. I don't disagree with the rule in general, but perhaps the timing was a bit off? --Apis (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

I've fully protected this article for a period of 14 days. During this time I encourage all users involved to discuss disputes on this talk page. In the last day or so, there have been 7 reverts to the page, and reverts make up much of the recent page history. That id disruptive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you remove the section with the partisan (and political) comment from the former majority seat of the US Senate Committee Environment and Public Works. That particular item is ruled out per WP:BLP (its self-published btw. in this case - and not as someone stated above "an official government" document):
Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research).
In this case the interpretation is a partisan political one of a scientific paper - that has not been contested in a scientific venue.
I could also go further and state that the source is in breach of no less than 4 of 6 items in the WP:SELFPUB section of WP:BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Let us get this right... Having somewhat negative but verifiable comments from the US Senate Majority on Oreskes' page would violate WP:BLP, but having sutff about Martians dating back to 1960 on Fred Singer's page would not? WP:SELFPUB is not relevant. Perhaps it's not an "official governement" document, but it's the view of the Senate Majority then. It's verifiable and notable and could be added as such. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
CE WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please focus on this article. You should take whatever problems there is with Singers article up on Singers talk page. The majority comment could be used as a source in a generic article - but not here. Yep WP:SELFPUB is relevant - as this doesn't represent neither the republican view - nor the governments - its not even an official comment from the committee, its merely a "fact of the day" published by the senators spin-team. Just as the current majority probably does. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
True that other stuff exists, but policies have to be applied with consistency. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, PB's revert is based on blatantly incorrect grounds, so I've taken it out, along with Peisers self-published junk William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why has this page been protected on the say-so of PB, who appears to have made precisely one partisan edit? The so-called edit war is just POV-pushing by L William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave the recommendation to protect the page as it is (it does not mean that Wikipedia as a whole endorses the article as it is) as this situation has happened in the past; there was a content dispute at the Pat Binns article where the page was hijacked for political purposes by a political activist, and the situation became public on national media. Therefore, I had the page protected to cool everyone off until we can figure out a neutral point of view, as it appears that there are 3 users who have clear identifiable biases, and I can't figure out who's right.
Furthermore, I've also posted a notice on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about the issue, to draw more attention and more senior editors to comment on the dispute.

ThePointblank (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well no-one asked you to. Reverting a page, and then running off and saying "help! there's a revert war..." isn't very helpful. Offering a pile of obviously incorrect reasons for reverting doesn't give me any great confidence in your judgement, either. Anyway, I've unprotected it William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Given the heated level of debate on the issue at hand, does that not in and of itself indicate that Benny Peiser's POV and work should at the very least be referenced on Oreskes' page? Whether one agrees with his findings or not, they are relevant to the discussion at hand and necessary for one looking for a thorough analysis of Oreskes' work, particularly her climate change essay. To remove it completely as being irrelevant is not "neutral" - it exists, it has been discussed at length, and any search on Oreskes' essay on Google (search term Oreskes +Peiser) will highlight nearly 14,000 articles on Oreskes' work with the findings of Peiser. Let's stop the silliness and maintain some adult level of conversation on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazen (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Where was Peiser's work published? Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
To me, it doesn't make sense to include stuff based on who makes the most noise. Just because someone involved in an edit war is a journalist shouldn't mean they get special treatment. --Apis 15:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, this would set an extremely dangerous precedent. Journalist with a POV to promote makes dodgy edits to article; edits are correctly reverted; journalist writes article about how bad Wikipedia is for daring to disagree with him; people restore journalist's dodgy edits to avoid bad publicity, thereby degrading the article. Wikipedia needs to nip this one in the bud. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned, this is a bio page on Oreskes, not just a debate on the validity of her work. The fact that Peiser's work was self-published is irrelevant, it has become a major part of the public debate on her conclusions and bears at the very least a mention. Should Oreskes' work be attacked by CNN or Fox News, that would also bear consideration and a mention, even if the basis is not in a "scientific" journal, because it would be public, widely dessiminated and it would be relevant to Oreskes as a person. And please, stop undoing changes to the discussion thread, that is pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazen (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 April 2008
This argument is political in nature, as was Oreskes' work. In any case, I would argue that some ontibutors on both sides have their own agenda -including those that support Oreskes' work as being of "untarnished quality" and that are looking to eliminate edits that conflict with their status quo. If the argument is valid, then it will sustain the challeners, bring them on for public consumption and stand on the facts. Grazen (talk • contribs)

-

In this case, I would recommend we delete everything under that section and just leave a listing of works published, plus a brief description (maybe) of what that research was, like the Stephen Hawking or the Bernard Williams article. This article is anyways listed as being a 'Start-Class' article, and if we plan on improving the article to something better than that, this is one way to do so. ThePointblank (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with that. If you want to improve on the article please go ahead and come up with a new proposal, but simply removing content isn't very helpful. I remember hearing about that particular work by Oreskes in the national news where i live (not US that is), and it is already well referenced. (And, no, I've never heard of Preiser until now). So I don't think there is any reason to remove that information. That doesn't mean the article can be improved upon and her other works should be mentioned as well of course! --Apis 20:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the styles of other higher classed articles, it seems this is the trend on biography articles. However, some biography articles do link to a sub article containing a more detailed list of works and a more detailed description of the work. ThePointblank (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what you are suggesting then, do you mean we should try and integrate this information in more detail into the main part of the article, and then add a section with selected publications to the end of the article? --Apis 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
What I am suggesting is moving the listing of works and description (plus controversy) to a new article where it is more appropriate to describe the works, and leave the biography page as a simple description of the person, what the person does, and notability. ThePointblank (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that might be a good idea: make a brief description of this 'famed' work here, and then provide links to a separate page about it. Then this page could give a more balanced view of Naomis work, etc. Although, as have been pointed out below, Preisers criticism is still self-published and thus wouldn't be included in the new page?
   I don't know what others opinions are on this? I haven't been involved in writing the original article.
   It might be wise to make a new sub-page or something showing the new version before making any final edits, considering how sensitive this have become (apparently). --Apis 21:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I would warn not to remove talk page comments, as that is against WP:TALK. Furthermore, there is no Wikipedia guidelines as to the removal of uncivil or personal attacks, as stated by Arbitration Committee, as it can be very easily misused. ThePointblank (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I find it helpful to leave uncivil comments and personal attacks in place, so we can more readily justify blocks of the person who makes them. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You are probably right. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lets try again

If we are going to mention Peiser's unpublished critique, then we need to mention the critique as well. We also need to describe that critique that Peiser's critique has received. And we need a description of what parts of the critique that Peiser has retracted.

We're in a bit of a fix here - Peiser's main critique was that he got a different result than Oreskes - but he has later admitted that his own counting of abstracts was wrong.[9]

So can we get a discussion going on what the mention should look like, or at the very least find a common ground (that is in correspondence with WP:BLP) on what kind of sources are allowed, since most of the information is from less than reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We had a consensus established before you and William decided to inject a random web page as evidence for a statement indicating that Peiser was "wrong". It was laughable and biased - a single citation on a web page as proof that Peiser is wrong? The web page doesn't even attempt to pretend that it is neutral. We had a consensus and it was hijacked. Interesting how Kim seems to lock the page only after her positions are reflected. Zealots indeed. But this is good, the evidence to support Solomon's position continues to climb with each post that Kim and William add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazen (talk • contribs) 00:31, 22 April 2008
Can you please at least try to be WP:CIVIL? And please stick to facts - i did not (in fact i can't) lock any pages. Address the article not the editors.
That out of the way, from even a cursory look at the above discussions, there was not consensus on removing critique about Peiser.
Now can we get back on point? I btw. agree with you on the low level of reliability of the blog posts, but as said above, if you allow one self published source, you open for more. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As an addition - while looking on Google for reliable sources for this, i can't help but notice that there hardly is any. Most sources are blogs, op-eds, editorials and various other less than reliable sources. Can we even support that Peiser's critique has received enough mention to reach a state where it should be mentioned (per WP:DUE)? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper article on this article

The history of tendentious, POV edits to this and other climate change articles documented in Saturday's National Post [1] is shocking. The fact the article has now been locked to prevent tampering with Tabletop's pro-warming orthodoxy compounds the offense. At a minimum, there should be an 'objectivity disputed' notice at the top of the page. I happen to agree with Tabletop on the issue of global warming, but I am dismayed that Wikipedia would enforce our viewpoint to the exclusion of dissenting views and inconvenient facts. This approach is an affront to what Wkikpedia stands for. Someone in a senior position at Wikipedia needs to step in and put a stop to this. Kempt Head (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One more reason why Wikipedia is NOT considered a valid resource of citation by many educators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.31.30 (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check your facts before making accusations, to begin with Tabletop only made a spelling correction and isn't the same person as KDP. Solomon have made an apology to tabletop here [10] on coppertwigs talkpage. Nor was Solomon right about the editing, he was reverted because he referred to original research and didn't have any reliable sources. --Apis (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


New Article In National Post (Saturday April 19, 2008), page FP17 by Lawrence Solomon. The article is titled "Hide your name on Wicked Pedia".

... and much is dark. Apparently, there is a very good and practical reason to maintain anonymity in Wikipedia. It can be Wicked Pedia....

We need the link once it is available (likely on April 20th or 21st) - please add here.Grazen (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Please sign your comments. The link is here: [11]. Keep in mind that ANY page in Wikipedia is subject to public scrutiny, so while sometimes it feels cozy and intimate everyone here should remember that this is totally in the public domain and is archived forever. Solomon's article is heated, of course, but honestly with the number of college students dropping Wikipedia pages into their works cited, it's very good that the public has a sense of how the sausage gets made. Wellspring (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that Lawrence is staying on top of this issue and keeping an eye on this page. I myself, as a new user have been helped by a few (and thanks to those) but attacked by many others who decided to delete my comments on the comment page, undo statements that they disagreed with or just undid statements without offering any comments! That is and was absolutely insane. I honestly believe that the people that are editing this page have crossed the line into being "evil", which is what Lawrence suggests in his latest article. You should be ashamed of yourselves, and you know who you are. The lights are being turned on for the rest of the world to see through your garbage. Knowledge is our power, not threats and attacks. Regards Grazen (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

See: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx

Financial Post is the business section of a major Canadian newspaper. Samw (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is titled: Wikipedia's zealots: The thought police at the supposedly independent site are fervently enforcing the climate orthodoxy. KimDabelsteinPetersen is mentioned prominently. (cut personal attacks pr. WP:NPA) So it is regrettable but understandable that this situation has now been escalated up to the level of a national newspaper. Perhaps this will result in the ending of the group ownership of climate change and a return to a balanced policy where all views are given due weight and no one view is "the truth". To quote WP:NPOV:
“ None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. ”
This policy has been routinely violated on the climate change pages. kevinp2 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately you seem to have failed to understand both WP:NPOV and WP:V. (as well as both WP:CIV and WP:NPOV) Once you can come up with a reliable source to put on this page - then be our guest. But the trouble is that you can't. Peiser's critique is self published and since Peiser is neither an expert, nor has been previously published in this particular area - his personal account of Oreskes "errors" is not acceptable to wikipedia. And thats also lucky - since all the critiques of Peiser's "study" are invalidated for the exactly same reasons. (they are also self published)
But again. Find a reliable source for a critique and we may talk business. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. If we admit Peiser's self-published study, we will need to admit the utterly devastating critiques thereof. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If you think about it for a second, it makes sense: anyone can set up a web page and publish criticism of something. I could do it in less than a minute. Then I could go to the relevant wikipedia article and say "hey look, this fellow here [[reference to my own web page]] have criticized this and that, that should be mentioned in the wikipedia article!". It is easy to see how this would quickly undermine the credibility of wikipedia. --Apis 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
So why does Beyond the Ivory Tower have no page for itself, if critique of it does not belong on Oreskes' bio page? Surely Peiser's critique, and critiques of Peiser's paper, should be discussed there. Link added. Somercet (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Preislers critique is still self-published, it wouldn't really change anything in this case. Take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability it discusses these issues in more detail. We can't include every bit of text that is written about this on the internet, theres already the internet for that. --Apis 21:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is quite embarrassing. Perhaps a more mature approach to this page's maintenance is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.72 (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading the Post article, I figured this page might be butchered soon after. Some issues:

In 2007 she elaborated on this work, saying that approximately 20% of abstracts explicitly endorsed the consensus on climate change that: "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities". In addition, 55% of abstracts "implicitly" endorsed the consensus by engaging in research to characterize the ongoing and/or future impact of climate change (50% of abstracts) or to mitigate against predicted changes (5%). The remaining 25% of abstracts either focused on paleoclimate (10%) or developing measurement techniques (15%) and Oreskes considered these to be agnostic on the reality of climate change.[2]

I don't think the source at the end of the paragraph really backs this. A direct link: [[12]] All I see here is a presentation that includes the original essay (p. 19) but nothing to back the paragraph's full contentions. In particular, the phrase in this paragraph 'consensus on climate change that: "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities"' is incomplete, since the consensus is defined in the essay as 'In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].'

Other comments seem to be laid on pretty thick, exaggerating the errors:

Contrary to her published description, however, the keywords Oreskes actually used in the ISI database search were 'global climate change'. This error on her part was not caught by the peer review process and led to much subsequent confusion when others attempted to replicate her findings. To add to the confusion, her study did not specify that she had limited her search to "articles" rather than "all document types."

"...not caught by the peer-review process" - that would be implied but this seems an attempt to give an extra POV nudge to it

"...much subsequent confusion...to add to the confusion..." - seems like both of these phrases could be removed.

Gmb92 (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just before i run off for a weekend out of town, the source for the various abstract percentages is a book - not just the slideshow and speech that she also does with the same title. Can't say i disagree with the rest. Have a nice weekend. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
OK the incivility in this edit war has to stop. First, someone above said that because Peiser is a social anthropologist he doesn't have the credibility to make claims about the environment. This is correct but misleading-- he is perfectly qualified to conduct a review of literature and make claims about the consensus of a social group, in this case climate scientists. Second, peer-reviewed is certainly preferable but it is not required. Self-published material is NOT usually considered reliable. While it sounds like Peiser's material is in fact self-published, it's not being sourced to establish the validity of his claims, it's being cited to discuss the fact that he's made those claims. Using WP policies is great; using them as a bludgeon to suppress debate and dissent is totally improper.
The journalist in the newspaper article has no particular standing as far as being a Wikipedia editor is concerned. Anything the journalist publishes in his day job that meets the WP:RS criteria would be fine as a source because it has editorial oversight behind it. If he wants to add factual information to Wikipedia himself, he can cite reliable sources like the rest of us. One would hope that a professional journalist would have no problem doing so. However, "I've spoken to Peiser" does NOT pass muster here; published sources are required because we can't verify any conversations that he may or may not have had with Peiser.
As for the subject under debate itself. I really know little to nothing about the details of the controversy. From what I can glean from what I've read, it appears that Oreskes's peer-reviewed paper can be cited to make a direct factual claim, as well in its context as the beginning of a public controversy. Peiser's responses can only be cited in the limited context of reporting that in this already notable controversy, Peiser has made counterclaims. As far as I can tell, attempts to stretch Peiser's statements to claim that he has retracted his critique or admits that his methods were "bunk" are misleading and a possible violation of WP:BLP. Wellspring (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
he is perfectly qualified to conduct a review of literature - disagree. He has in fact demonstrated himself quite incompetent to read the literature, sources available upon request William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As a social anthropologist, reviews of literature to measure consensus on a subject are his field. Whether or not his review of the scholarly work on the subject is accurate is not our job, in this context, to determine. The larger questions surrounding climate change aren't any of this article's business, either. We're on the narrow question of whether or not Peiser's critique of Oreskes's literature review is appropriate to include. Peiser is not qualified to be cited as an authority on climatology, any more than a climatologist would be qualified to write an ethnography. A literature review like this is a gray area where either discipline is appropriate.
And actually, properly sourced, charges of incompetence are quite appropriate for the Peiser article. Wellspring (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
And, let's be honest and not imply that Oreskes had any more serious qualification to perform the work that ended up in Nature... Her work's cited here merely because it's been published there, not because of her qualification. --Childhood's End (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually Oreskes has all the qualifications for such a work. 1. A degree in geology 2. work in Earth sciences and 3. a degree in scientific history. That pretty much covers for the basic qualifications. But yes - that the publication was in Nature, has quite a bit to do with its reliability as a source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I now see a little bit more clearly the level of "resume" that is considered adequate to be able to claim that there is a consensus about climate change on Earth. Thanks. --Childhood's End (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss other articles on their respective talkpage, it will be very hard to follow the discussions otherwise. The question here is whether Peisers criticism belongs on this page or not, and as far as I can see it doesn't. It's not published anywhere except on his own webpage as far as I know. If I were to write a critical article about George W. Bush, North Korea or USA, and put it on the web, is that enough to warrant a mention on their respective pages? No it's clearly not, even if my critique is valid, or even if I'm mr Peiser. Perhaps if Oreskes paper also was self published, but then it probably shouldn't be in wikipedia to begin with. Thus any debate about Peisers competence is irrelevant. --Apis 05:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I was addressing the objection from William M. Connolley and Kim D. Petersen that Peiser isn't credentialed to critique the article. I do agree that the fact that the critique is self-published would normally suggest that we eliminate the whole section, except if the debate over the article itself was notable. I'm not trying to argue that Peiser is right, I was saying his objection was notable. A quick google search includes (once you wade through all the blogs) a couple major media sources reporting on the controversy. Here's a few links: [13] [14] [15] and one link from the Senate EPW committee [16].
After wading through my search, I agree that the MSM coverage has been thin. The controversy certainly deserves a mention, but a large section would, I agree, give the subject undue weight (WP:DUE). Wellspring (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Small inserted comment here. I don't believe that i've questioned Peisers qualifications in doing such a study. What i pointed out was that the exceptions to WP:SPS couldn't be fullfilled. (ie. expert in the subject with previous publication record on the subject). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
As for it being a notable critique, then we have to bring in the whole she-bang, because the critiques of Peiser are even more numerous (and also covered by reliables sources). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then we agree for most part, =) I'm still not convinced that Peisers objections are notable enough to be mentioned here though. Of the sources you mentioned at least two can be considered notable in my opinion. I don't know about cnsnews, and I don't know enough about the US senate to be able to judge that contents. Compared to Oreskes paper that is still very thin coverage, her work was published in Science and mentioned in numerous reliable sources. If we were to mention Peiser in a sentence or so (which I still don't think we should) how would it look? "Benny Peiser, a British social anthropologist, criticized Oreskes paper, but his criticism were never published in any peer reviewed scientific journal"? Which raises the question: if it was never published, why do we even mention it, and then we get into conspiracy theories which are entirely out of scope here. I really can't come up with a way of mentioning it without it sounding utterly ridiculous or giving it undue weight. --Apis 18:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Capsule Description: The US Senate page's context is this: the Senate has a series of committees which do most of the work. Each committee is selected and stacked by the leader of the majority party to ensure that his/her party controls every committee (seniority is very important here but this is just a way simplified version of it). Basically the result is that each committee has a majority and a minority (ie, if the Democrats have an overall majority in the Senate, then the Republicans are the minority on each committee). A majority committee is about 30-40 staffers working mostly for the chairman. The minority staff are usually about 5-10 people working mostly for the highest-ranking minority member. They are political entities in their own right. So a routine press release like this should be taken similarly to a press release from a politician or lobbying organization. I don't know anything about CNS News either.
You raise a good question about what that sentence should actually say. The current language at this particular moment is ok except that blogs are not reliable sources for critiquing Peiser's content (and they don't seem to be notable in and of themselves). Some of William Connolley's references would be useful here. Perhaps, "Oreskes's study has been criticized by climate change skeptics, including climate expert Richard Lindzen and social anthropologist Benny Peiser. Neither critique was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peiser's paper in particular has been controversial, and he has acknowledged that his own study was methodologically flawed." Then we include links to Lindzen's editorial (WSJ, I think, I found it yesterday) and clean up the sources. If William can find a reliable source to say that Peiser's paper is methodologically flawed, we can make it say, "Oreskes's study has been criticized by climate change skeptics, including climate expert Richard Lindzen and social anthropologist Benny Peiser. Neither critique was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peiser's self-published paper was later discovered to be methodologically flawed." The link to peiser's article can provide any details if someone wants to dig deeper.
Wellspring (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info on us senate committees. =)
If pesier work were to be considered notable enough then I think your suggestions are reasonable. Although climate expert should probably be changed to atmospheric physicist. Replacing the section: "Contrary to her [...] American Association of Petroleum Geologists" with what you suggested might be the best solution. The information in that section could then be moved to peisers page if necessary, which I assume describes his critique in more detail. Still, I do think it's a bit silly to include it here (because of tiny notability), though it wouldn't be worse than whats already in the article.
I'm guessing that it's hard to find much more than blogs as a critical references to preisers work since his critique is only self-published and have recieved so little media attention. If a blog (etc) is written by someone knowledgeable in the field then I think that would be a valid reference. --Apis (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm starting to see the bind that Peiser's detractors are in. If they publish something against him, they increase his visibility; if they don't, they leave his critique unanswered. Anyway, yeah I agree with your phrasing. Happy earth day everyone. :) (ducks) Wellspring (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So maybe we should remove the part about Peiser then? My only worry about that is that someone will come and add it again in a week, but I guess we can refer them to this discussion then. =) Apis (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have changed to this version: [17], is that acceptable? I haven't been able to figure out what Richard Lindzens critique was so I don't want to add that unless there's at least a source of some sort. I've also tried to clear up the Peiser page to reflect the sources as well as possible. I hope this satisfies everyone, it would be good if we could reach some agreement here, then we can refer new editors to this discussion before they make any major changes, or else it will probably have changed again by tomorrow. Apis (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This version looks good. It addresses the notable critique without giving it undue weight. I think the Peiser stuff needs to be there, but this way it doesn't take over the section and doesn't go unchallenged. If we can wrap some consensus around this, then I think we're in business. Wellspring (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Great, I think that qualifies. :) The other main opinion would be to remove everything about Peiser if I interpret it correctly so I think this is settled then until someone has something new to add. Apis (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well said and agreed. This is a political back and forth that should *not* influence the factual information related to the biography of a living person! The issue, and you have deposited it very clearly so I apologize for repeating, but Peiser's work on Oreskes' results is important and I would add *critical* to a full and wholesome understanding of Oreskes, her work and the impact that it has had. Agree or disagree with Peiser, his findings and the implications therein have had an impact - to properly understand Oreskes, we need to include the work done by Peiser and the implcations therein. Deleting and subverting or deleting them is not an option.Grazen (talk • contribs)
I disagree. Peisers work is unimportant and helps not at all in understanding Oreskes work. Peiser has demonstrated that he is unable to read the literature he is attempting to review, which is why his work is worthless. Peisers work is a useful illustration of how global warming septics will seize on anything, no matter how badly done, to push their POV. Which may rate a mention over at global warming controversy but not here William M. Connolley (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Global warming skeptics should not be allowed to question the prevailing narrative and should be kept out. Fortunately, Wikipedia is still good at this.kevinp2 (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If you can demonstrate that the criticism is not notable, then it wouldn't belong here. However, it does meet the criteria for notability in my opinion. A line about it would be sufficient without going overboard and giving the subject undue weight.
I am not a global warming skeptic. I'm not a climate scientist at all, but my layman's reading on the subject indicates that the consensus in the scientific community is that global warming is occurring and is caused by human activity. However, there are skeptics out there, including climate experts, and their views are notable and therefore merit inclusion. I'm getting the sense that for some people this is a proxy battle for the global warming debate, but this should NOT be about POV pushing, in either direction. Wellspring (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Please remember that this is a biography page - not a general article. If anywhere, it belongs on Peiser's page and possibly in the more generic Global warming controversy page. Otherwise we'll end up with a general discussion of global warming and how this article has been used by various people in various discussions. (i'd argue that Gore's usage is more notable - and that that doesn't merit mention here either). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Imho, we're already going way to far in covering this particular paper. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
My remarks were ambiguous, and I apologise to Wellspring for what may have looked like a personal attack. To clarify: Peisers work is a useful illustration of how global warming septics will seize on anything, no matter how badly done, to push their POV was intended to refer to the way that Peisers work has been seized in the real world, not within wiki. I believe that Peisers work is not a valuable crit of O's work: rather, it is a not very notable part of the septic spin machine (which is why Peiser produceed it). Note that this is covered in the Benny Peiser article - indeed it seems to be his one claim to notability, as far as wiki is concerned William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
NP, William, it's easy in Wikipedia to misconstrue other people's intentions. Let's everyone cool down and assume lots and lots of good faith. We're all trying to make the article better. Wellspring (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Correct or not, can you give the fellow his due? At the bare minimum he runs a fairly influential publication over the past 11 years and has had a asteroid/minor planet named after him. Both facts are in his wikipedia page as is his 2003 book on climate change (Adapt or Die: The science, politics and economics of climate change). This sort of personal denigration ("seems to be his one claim to notability, as far as wiki is concerned") should have no place here. TMLutas (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I know little of him outside GW. Within GW, he has demonstrated that he can't read abstracts accurately. If you think there are things about hi worth adding to his wiki page, then the correct thing to do is to add them William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That's just the point, those items were taken from his wikipedia page at the time of writing. There's nothing to add. The facts were already there. You just either didn't bother to look before your 08:30, 20 April 2008 response, and didn't bother to look before either (I reviewed all the edits dating back to the 19th just to make sure). Those who disagree with your POV and your professional advocacy are not the cardboard cutouts you like to believe. TMLutas (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You apologize and then proceed to call skeptics, "septics" several times, on purpose I beleive, in order to belittle their point of view. It is extremely arrogant and uncivil of you to assume, or to presume, that you are the foundation of all knowledge on the issue, and that others, Peiser ("septic spin machine"), "septics", etcetera, etcetera, are out to *get you*. COnsider which side is pushing for freedom, and which side is not, that provides the answer as to one's political motivations. As for Oreseks, as mentioned repeatedly, she reverse engineered the answer that she was looking for, published it, got busted, and now the person that provided the valuable insight into her techniques (Peiser) is being attacked, while the producer, Oreskes is defended. Wows. Grazen (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but this is just about the most blatant example of WP:POT i've seen so far ;) - your own comment is so extremely biased and based on POV that its almost uncanny. "consider which side is pushing for freedom" indeed (lol). Try to tone it down will ya? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
We finally agree Kim, William is out of control and really needs to tone it back. Either that or he should double check his spelling, though I suspect that the error was intentional. In any case, scientests *are* skeptical by nature (pardon the pun). Oreskes' work attempted and failed to show that their was a universal agreement on a subject - and to be blunt, the fact that she didn't do a "double take" when she saw a near universal agreement on an issue this suspicious is, well, suspicious. Peiser and others should be welcomed for bringing some additional insight into her work, the closer we get to the truth, the more useful this and other pages become. In any case, even if there was universal agreement on something (... like evolution...?) it doesn't make it correct. I'm pretty sure that at one point there was universal agreement that the earth was flat. The people that disagreed with that view were also treated pretty roughly - perhaps we haven't come as far as we believe in all of these years. And as an aside, yes, this is my POV. That's why it's on the discussion page, so that we might discuss our POV's in terms of what should be included in the "official" Wikipedia page on Oreskes', which unfortunately is locked in a rather unfortunate state right now.Grazen (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Not wanting to speak for William but I suspect there's a deliberate distinction between "sceptics" and "septics" in his usage. When you say "this is my POV" it's not clear what your antecedent is -- surely you don't believe the earth is flat, but I can't tell what you're referring to. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I would find it fascinating what sort of world would have the word septic as a modifier to describe a scientific, economic, or political position that was not pejorative, insulting, and distinctly unuseful to wikipedia. Some kulture kiddies in the pacific northwest apparently think that septic means "cool" but I don't think that's what WMC had in mind. TMLutas (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone has something new to add, how about everyone move along and try to do something useful instead of speculating over what was most likely a spelling mistake. --Apis (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ohh, come~'on! Consensus is not science, and this article is a biography not about earth's climate, get it? Stop playing the political correct consensus card and stop debating the relevance of climate change in any other aspect than mentioning what Oreskes has worked on. How hard can this be? Lord Metroid (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's more a practical question, if we can agree on some base version, we don't have to have an edit war every time someone wants to add an essay about Peisers critique here. It would be nice to be able to refer people to the talk page instead. --Apis (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And although I agree about the biography part and I suspect it's not her most important work it is very famous. --Apis (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous! - no doubt there are opinions on both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wejamire (talk • contribs) 21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Solomon has added some more fuel to the fire, and good for him. Great article on April 26th about some more of the shenanigans going on on this topic. Link is here:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/26/the-real-climate-martians-solomon.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazen (talk • contribs) 21:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected again

Changed protection level to full for 1 week due to ongoing edit warring. Perhaps in a week the situation will calm down. Discuss civilly please - focus on article improvement, not other editors. Vsmith (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to use the wording that Apis and I have been working on as the basis for discussion. Any thoughts? Wellspring (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Wellspring obviously. If anyone wants to discuss this it would be great if they first read the discussion above, since a lot of things have been covered in great detail already. :) It would be great if someone had some new insight into the discussion. --Apis (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure which version you mean. How about people giving a link to their favoured versions here? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised you missed it, it's not all that hard to find. I was hoping it would lead people to discuss changes on the talk page instead of writing over each others edits, unfortunately it seems the page got locked due to edit waring instead. I guess I should have been more careful, although the page being locked seems to have led to some discussion in the end. --Apis (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
IMHO we had a good consensus before it was locked on April 22nd. The version prior to Kim's changes had some broad support - Kim stirred the pot with some irrational changes, and then it was "suddenly" and conveniently locked. Go back to that version Grazen (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warming skeptics/ Consensus opposers

Two different things. Lindzen is a scientist and Peiser is also, he writes science books, is on the faculty of science, and is an anthropologist; on the subject of anthropogenic climate change, that sounds like qualifying as a scientist. Regardless, their opposition is to the idea of a consensus as well as to her not proving that in the essay. And her essay is quoted upon numerous pages here in encyclopedia articles and on the Internet and in major newspaper editorials as proof of a scientific consensus. Peiser even agrees the bulk do show a consensus, just not all, which is the disagreement with the analysis itself; "Despite this manifest skepticism, I do not wish to deny that a majority of publications goes along with the notion of anthropogenic global warming by applying models based on its basic assumptions."

Global warming skeptic is rather negative sounding and not really correct. According to what I see the problem is the consensus itself. It for sure doesn't fit with 'scientific opinion on climate change', because that's not what it's really been challenged on. So why not call him one of the 'scientists opposing the consensus' for purpose of explaining the response (by her) to criticisms on the consensus? Seems the most neutral and factual choice to give an overview of it all. Is that an acceptable viewpoint? Sln3412 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - social anthropology does not qualify Peiser to write on climate science, just as it doesn't qualify him to write on quantum physics or neuroscience. His criticisms of Oreskes have been entirely demolished to the point where he has admitted his original criticisms were bunk - the only one of his 35 extracts to contradict the consensus position appeared in the journal of American Association of Petroleum Geologists - an oil industry publication which is not peer reviewed - hence failed to meet Oreskes's criteria.(unknown critic)

Unknown critic, you are still falling into the same trap laid by your colleagues. As a scientist, Peiser is perfectly qualified to discuss science and scientific methods. He has never said that his criticisms are "bunk". As an anonymous critic, your comment carries very little weight. If anyone agrees with me, please feel free to delete unknown critic's unsigned remarks as well as my grumpy retort. Bushcutter (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This has come up about thirty times now. A study of consensus in a social group is perfectly appropriate for anthropologists. The reason we wouldn't be able to cite Peiser as fact is that it's self-published and therefore not a reliable source. However, we're not discussing whether to cite Peiser as fact, we're discussing whether his critique has generated enough attention that the fact that he made it is notable in and of itself.
An arcane paper on physics might not be notable enough to be mentioned as a paper, but still be a Reliable Source to reference the underlying facts it asserts. An Oscar acceptance speech might make all kinds of zany claims-- these claims could not be included in Wikipedia using the speech as a source, but the speech itself would be notable enough to mention. Wellspring (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Galileo and Darwin etc. were self published, so self published per se does not invalidate the issue.DLH (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blog post

FYI, the shenanigans occurring recently in this article have been documented on Lawrence Solomon's blog [19]. Any validity to his complaints? Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. Various explanations are possible: Solomon wasn't aware of Wikipedia's standards on neutrality and sourcing; he was aware of the standards but tossed them aside in order to promote his POV; and on and on. Only Solomon himself knows for certain. Kim's actions have been strictly in accordance with WP:V, WP:NOR, and other essential policies. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course there's validity to the claims, as the edit log clearly shows. Every time the article achieves some semblance of neutrality, someone comes in and once again with slanted claims like Peiser "retracted his criticism" or "he was proven wrong". As for Solomon, his only relevance is to refute the POV-pushers who are continually trying to put words in Peiser's mouth. Their claims were demonstrably false even before Solomon's article, now they're doubly so. There should no longer be any debate about what Peiser said or did; the record is very clear.FellGleaming (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've read his articles, but rather than try to argue with/against I'll just say that there's a high degree of emotion going around right now, especially since it's become kind of a proxy fight for the global warming debate. The compromise Apis and I have been engineering has been to mention Peiser's critique (since it's notable) and also flaws in his critique (which are referenceable for content). The page was protected with a version by one of the partisans, but hopefully we can get everyone on board with a consensus version. Wellspring (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no serious objection with the version that you and Apis compromised on.[20] In fact it is rather more watered down, and possibly neutral, than the version that Solomon objected that I reverted back to [21]. The only thing that i would comment on, is that the claim that Peiser main objection was unanimous consensus, that seems to be an after-rationalization. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
O dear, yes I think you are right about that, that should have been pointed out somehow. That is probably the cause of some of the confusion (i.e. "he didn't claim that!"). I think it is important to point out that is what he says afterwards though, so no one gets the impression that Peiser still claim there isn't a consensus (like Solomon is trying to give the impression of). "Peiser later after-rationalized [...]" or something might have been better.. Maybe saying after-rationalized could be perceived as a OR though: "Peiser later claimed [...]" and so on would probably have been best. Sorry! --Apis (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've made corrections on the Benny Peiser page now at least. --Apis (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think if we go into analyzing the content of Peiser's critique then we open up the door to a whole paragraph again, which is undue weight. He made a critique, that's what was notable, and Oreskes responded. The content of the critique and the critique of the critique, etc. can be on the Peiser page if people want to dig in. I think that language like "after-rationalized" would constitute OR. Wellspring (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed utterly. In a bio, major works and critiques of those works are valid. Critiques of those critiques (particularly when performed by Wikipedians themselves) are out of place. If a user wants more information on Peiser's paper, they can read his own entry. FellGleaming (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
So we mention Peiser's critique, but we can't mention that others have pointed out the incompetence of his critique. Clever move. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The mere fact you refer to it as "incompetent" reveals your own POV problems with this entry. The point still stands: a critique of Peiser belongs on his page, not Oreskes. If we open the door to critiques of critiques of critiques, where does it stop? Do we also load up Oreskes' page with links to people who supported his analysis also? The whole discussion is out of place in a bio of Oreskes. She had a major work; someone criticized it. Stop the POV pushing. FellGleaming (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no question that Peiser's critique was incompetent, as attested in multiple sources. It's disingenuous to wall off the discussion so that the critique must be presented at face value. Since neither Peiser's critique nor the analyses of it were published in peer-reviewed sources, the obvious solution is to omit both the critique and analyses. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no question in your mind, but forcing your belief onto readers diverges from NPOV. As for the notability of Peiser's critique, it has appeared in several established sources, such as the Wall Street Journal and others. You yourself have written extensively on Peiser's essay in his own entry, so claiming here it's not notable reveals hypocrisy. Again, stop trying to whitewash this entry and work towards a neutral, well-balance article. FellGleaming (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think there is much doubt that we can disregard his critique from an academic/scientific point of view, Peiser himself have basically admitted as much. It's not even published anywhere except on his own web page! So in that regard his criticism isn't notable at all and don't belong on this page. (And I wouldn't object to removing it either). However, those skeptical to global warming like to use him to try and dismiss Naomis essay, and he has been mentioned a couple of times in the popular media. So because of this "fame", maybe you could say it was notable in some sense. Since that would be the only reason to include Peiser in this article, it would be misleading to indicate that his critique had any weight and we need to clarify that peisler himself admits that "undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority". --Apis (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
And as Wellspring said: if we do mention it, it should be brief. --Apis (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to contest that Peiser's critique is notable. I started collecting various sources to this "controversy", in particular sources that are considered reliable and non-partisan by wikipedia.[22] I have to say that its extremely little data, that i could find. Googling "+Peiser +Oreskes" finds 5190 pages, not much - but hopefully with some quality sources..... But No. I get to page 5 before the first mainstream news-article pops up (about Science censoring Peiser).
So please help me find sources for this (feel free to add sources - or copy the list here) - if you want to claim that we have to raise a self published critique to the level where it is so notable that it merits mention. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The "not notable" objection isn't floating, especially as you yourself have seen fit to write extensively on the Peiser essay within his own bio entry. This wasn't "a blog post" -- it was a letter by a noted authority, which Science Magazine itself said was "widely disseminated". And so it has been. It's been published in many major soures since. Every editor here was familiar with it (and the hundreds of critiques and analyses of it) long before they ever saw this entry. Trying to sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist is wrong, plain and simple. Evernyone with *any* knowledge of Oreskes also knows about the Peiser rebuttal; right or wrong, the two are inextricably linked. Our job here isn't to influence the reader's opinion one way or another, but simply to inform them in a neutral manner as to the basis of the controversy. FellGleaming (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
We are editing a biography of a living person, i suggest that you read carefully what it says about self published sources and undue weight. If you can document that its been published in "major sources" since - then feel free to do so. As for your "anyone" argument - well "anyone" would also know that Peiser admitted (in at least 2 seperate places) that his critique was flawed. And the wide dissemination that was done on blog pages of his critique. And frankly i doubt that the "anyone" argument holds.
Our job here is not to present everything equally on a Smörgasbord, so that people can pick and chose. Thats is not what WP:NPOV is about (or for that matter any encyclopedia) - Sorry. We present what is notable in accordance (and proportion) with due weight. Now my question is: Where is the weight? So please do get out and find those reliable sources that makes your argument hold - Ok? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
To summarize: Establish that its a notable controversy - and not just a storm in partisan media and the bloggosphere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That contains so many mistakes, its hard to know where to begin. Peisers letter has never been published by a reliable source. Peiser himself admits that it contains mistakes. The central claim oft repeated - that he found 34 abstracts to dispute the consensus - is trash. If we mention his unpublished letter, we should mention his errors too William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I *did* document that Peiser's results had appeared in a reliable source. That source (the WSJ) was removed by another editor. As for this silliness about "Peiser admitting his mistake", that is a deeply dishonest portrayal and you know it. In the very same letter, he *affirmed* that his conclusions were entirely correct; the 'error' in no way affected either his results or his beliefs about them. FellGleaming (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Finally, I have to point out that Oreskes admitted to a much larger error, in misdescribing both her search terms and result set; an error that affected her results far more severely. Yet-- in a bio on Oreskes herself, no less-- you feel her error isn't worth mention, but someone else's far smaller one is? FellGleaming (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to point it out, but I hadn't heard about Peiser until I read this article and the column by Solomon, but I certainly had heard about Naomi. Since his critique (even if it was right) is still not notable and in the end it's not our job to determine that, we can only go on what the very few sources say, and they indicate that Peiser was wrong. Partly by his own accord even, and If you think his error didn't affect his result then I suggest you read again:
"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact." [23]
The only mistake Naomi appears to have made is to say 'climate change' and not 'global climate change' although that didn't affect the results significantly (or at all?) I'm no expert, but that is what even Peiser himself says. Naomi said she had used 'global climate change' when asked, and to me that is a minor mistake when writing the article and not something that affected the research she did. Naomis essay has been mentioned often and is published in Science, a peer-reviewed journal, as well as in numerous newspapers and other media. I've seen one or three newspaper articles that even mention Peiser. If we should mention it here, only because one or two journalists that haven't checked their facts (or just don't care) have mentioned it, then we have to point out that it holds no weight. --Apis (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not a normal editor here, obviously. But I do have to say that there is a strong resonance of cognitive disonance in the statements by Apis. I'll try to break this down simply:
  1. The search terms of a metadata study are fundamental to the data. Portraying the results of one metadata study as the results of another is either evidence of extreme negligence or extreme malfeasance; both of which are grossly incompetent.
  2. The citation for "Peiser was proven wrong" in the current incarnation is extremely POV, and the citation is horribly inadequate to the point. If you are going to cite something that merely quotes Peiser himself, then cite Peiser himself, as is done in the Global Warming Controversy article. The letter quoted by the blog cited in citation #8 here is in fact linked to directly in the GWC article. That letter makes it explicitly clear that Peiser remains convinced that his metadata study in fact contradicts Oreskes's claim.
  3. Oreskes's claim itself was that the anthropogenic global warming consensus is unanimous. Peiser found instances -- however few -- of disagreement. In other words, Oreskes made a falsifiable statement and Peiser falsified it. This is noteworthy.
Perhaps, as a way of satisfying all parties, something along the following wording ought to be included? "While controversial (cite his letter admitting his technical errors here), refutations of Oreskes's most notable work have been issued, such as the self-published replication effort of her study conducted by Peiser (cite the study itself here)" -- Ian. (4.22.2008 @ 11:14 PM AZT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.186.147 (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, first of all, I'd like to sugest you read the above discussions unless you have already done so. You might also want to take a look at the page history to see diffrent versions of the page. There was a lot of editing back and forth wich led to the page being locked in it's current state, and as the message states: that is not an endorsement of the current version. Since you direct this to me I'll try and clarify what I meant:
  1. I didn't say it isn't important, I said it didn't have much impact on the result, Naomi published a correction to this also, and as far as I know that was published in Science.
  2. I don't think it's extremely POV if it's true? And I also think the source should be considered relative to the 'horribly inadequate' source of Peisers critique, wich is self-published on his personal webpage. (and I didn't add that statement either btw).
  3. Im not sure what you mean here. As have been pointed out, she didn't claim there was an unanimous consensus, she was much more specific than that. She did claim there was a consensus though, and Peisler later have agreed to that, and also that "undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority". So no, it's not noteworthy. But what is also important, and probably the cause of some confusion, is the wikipedia concept of notability. That is discussed in lengt above, with links to pages explaining relevant wikipedia policies so it's not necessary to repeat that here.
I think your sugestion would be misleading, and I'm starting to think that it's probably best to simply not include any mention of peiser at all since that only causes a lot of confusion and it would agree with wikipedia policies in my opinion. --Apis (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] section break

(moved unindent here (for redability)) --Apis (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


I think that would be a mistake. Look, we've fought this notability battle above already. I hadn't heard much about either person until the controversy over this article erupted in the news, and based on what I've read since then I'd say there's no question that there's notability here. KDP et al, please go back and read our conversation above for references to the notability of the critique. The critique was made and is notable-- that's not an endorsement of his critique, and in fact caveats about its reliability are quite appropriate if well sourced and if the whole thing can be reduced to a sentence or two to avoid undue weight.

People need to get their personal opinions out of this and get back to the facts. Most of the arguments I've seen against including this boil down to either notability-- which Apis and I have already discussed above-- or "we can't print this because it's wrong/he's an idiot/he works for an oil company". In other words, POV-pushing. You're going to be exposed to opinions you disagree with in life. The fact that they're presented isn't an endorsement of them. Wellspring (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wellspring, i have read the previous arguments for notability of the critique, and to be frank, i thought i agreed - until i actually tried to find more information, which is the reason that i'm restarting that discussion. I have trouble finding more than 2-3 reliable sources that even cover this. Please remember that this is a biography, and that the rules are extra strict for material such as this. (ref: WP:BLP). We cannot use the argument that its covered in the bloggosphere and other self-published sources for much. You can add to my list if you have better sources. User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Temporary#Oreskes_notes.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
How about:
Oreskes' study has been criticized by social anthropologist Benny Peiser in an unpublished manuscript.[x] Peisers analysis was shown to be wrong[y] and he has later admitted that "undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority".[z]
I'd also support removing Peiser altogether. (From this page, I presume he's mentioned on some climate change skeptics pages already). --Apis (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is notability - i haven't found anything even remotely close to notable. And considering that this (Oreskes) study is being quoted in >100 scientific papers - i rather think that we need to establish notability. And even more so, because of the SPS section in WP:BLP. If we can't establish notability - no go. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Notability was established above in the references I listed. If you can provide a WP:RS that said he was wrong, then I'd be willing to accept Apis's new suggestion, with a few purely stylistic wording tweaks that don't affect the content. So far all I've seen are blog posts, lobbyist groups, and talk page comments refuting him. I don't doubt they're out there, but let's get some links going. William Connolley mentioned that he was going to produce them. Based on the articles I read, it sounds like it's a bit hyperbolic to say he was "wrong", "incompetent", etc. etc. Instead, it sounds like a semantics argument that Peiser got careless in: "unanimity" vs "consensus". Anyway, my opinion isn't important: let's get some sources going. Wellspring (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Wellspring, the sources that you've mentioned so far, are the only ones that have been found. That documents that it has been mentioned in reliable sources - but it does not document notability. If we only have a handfull of WP:RS sources (and we have <5 in regular media) - then its most certainly not a notable critique. Please address this, as it is precisely the discussion above that is being questioned. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
We have a problem of parity of sources. There are a few references that have mentioned Peiser's critique but the critique itself never passed muster in an appropriate venue such as a scientific journal. Thus, we can't expect that criticisms of that work be published in journals. And as for the criticisms being hyperbolic, they aren't. Most of the abstracts he cited have nothing at all to do with climate change, much less refuting the consensus. "Incompetent" isn't hyperbolic and doesn't mean Peiser is dumb; rather, he was operating far outside his field of expertise (he's an anthropologist and not a physical scientist) and thus was "lacking qualification or ability."[24] And as a result he made a hash of the critique. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
All these points have been discussed above. First, the content of Peiser's critique is not reliable for wikipedia purposes, but it can be referenced purely as the fact that a critique is made if that critique is notable (which we established above). In other words, if someone wrote, "Oreskes's study was refuted in later literature" and then referenced Peiser's critique, it would be rightly removed for violating WP:RS. In fact, this is what happened IIRC.
You need to establish that the critique is notable. We have 3 independent WP:RS (Telegraph,BBC,Aust ABC) sources that mention this, thats all. Quite a bit lower on the WP:RS scale we have the Lindzen op-ed, and finally a couple of Marc Moreno editorials (one of which may be RS). That is definitively not notable enough to go against the rules of WP:SPS and WP:BLP, it wouldn't even be enough to merit inclusion (per WP:WEIGHT) in a regular article. Try addressing this point first please. And try contrasting this with more than 100 peer-reviewed papers that reference Oreskes. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: incompetence, as a social anthropologist, Peiser is at least theoretically equipped to conduct a review of scientific literature. He isn't qualified to draw conclusions about global warming, but he is credentialed to draw conclusions about the consensus or lack thereof in a community. Not that this matters; if he can get published in a reliable source he could be cited. Note that his critique has not been published in a reliable source; so just to reiterate we can't use his article as evidence of anything other than the fact that the article itself exists. Which in this case is what we're doing. Wellspring (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
And, of course, Peiser is more than just a social anthropologist. He's one whose recent research has focused primarily on the social aspects of climate change and is thus at least as qualified to comment on the state of consensus as a historian. Regarding his study, it hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but the results have appeared in many reliable sources. In effect, it should be treated no differently than as if Peiser himself (or any other scientist) had verbally relayed the conclusions directly to a reporter. Literally tens of thousands of Wiki articles contain such references-- direct quotes from scientists, which appear in no other source but through the medium of a reputable reporter. FellGleaming (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've littered your comment with some requests for documentation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
While you may have found that humorous, it's hardly helpful to the discussion. Please make your own remarks; don't edit other people's comments. My original point stands. One cannot treat Peiser's essay as a peer-reviewed paper; it is, however, no different than remarks made directly to a media representative or other well-verified source. Claiming it's "unimportant" is dancing around the truth. The reality of the situation is that Peiser and Oreskes both owe their visibility on the societial scene to this controversy.FellGleaming (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You still miss the point here. Has the media really reported on this, sufficient enough to merit that the critique is notable? Statements in the media, are not considered reliable on science. And please address those citation needed tags if you are going to persist the claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your position is clearly untenable. If the only thing admissible from a scientist is a peer-reviewed study, then we'll have to clear out from Wikipedia a few hundred thousand references to books, magazine articles, and newspaper stories that all contain statements or positions from scientists. They are continually and consistently used throughout Wikipedia, and indeed all encyclopedias in general. FellGleaming (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read and understand WP:BLP, WP:SPS, WP:V and WP:DUE. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't bludgeon us with your WP:abbreviations. WP:BLP is not relevant here, WP:SPS and WP:V have been addressed. FellGleaming makes a good point here. However, WP:DUE is still at issue, and is addressed below. Wellspring (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No, i'm sorry the issue with self-published sources and verifiability have not been addressed. The requirements for biographies is (for good reasons) extremely more strict than for regular articles. I'm glad that we agree on weight though. I'm sorry to raise the policies - but it seems that people here are forgetting them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
To be honest all those policies have been mentioned and discussed above and below a fair amount of times. --Apis (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
As have been pointed out numerous times now: from an academic point of view it's certainly not notable (only self-published among other things). From a general media perspective, it has been mentioned in reliable sources a couple of times, although, that is tiny compared to how often Oreskes have been mentioned in similar media. Maybe you could argue it's notable enough to be included in an article that tries to cover climate change denial? (I'm not all that familiar with that subject though). This BLP page doesn't and shouldn't try to cover that though. So I tend to agree with Kim, it's not notable enough, and any mention of it tends to be undue weight even if we were to mention it. --Apis (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, here are some other references: James V. Zidek (2006) Editorial: (Post-normal) statistical science Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 169 (1) , 1–4. Taylor, Jerry (2005) Hot Enough For You? National Review; 7/18/2005, Vol. 57 Issue 13, p20-22. Climate Leadership Initiative (2006) Q & A For Climate Skeptics: Answers to the Most Frequently Stated Concerns Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon: Sustainable Governance and Organizational Change Publications. Shaw, Jane S. (2005) Vision Through a Narrow Lens Energy & Environment Vol 16 No 3&4, p543. Schmidt, Brian. Warmed-over climate attack National Post's Financial Post & FP Investing (Canada), May 30, 2005 Monday, FINANCIAL POST; Pg. FP15, 537 words, Financial Post.
However, after looking through all these sources, I think you're right that this is rather thin for a bio page. I'm withdrawing my objection to removing the reference entirely.
Finally, just as a side note, I'd like to ask KDP again to please refrain from editing other people's talk page entries. Incivility doesn't add anything and it delays us coming to a consensus. Wellspring (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where are we now?

Just a reminder, the current text is essentially mine and says:

Oreskes's study has been criticized by social anthropologist Benny Peiser in an unpublished manuscript.[2] Peiser's main objection was to the claim of an unanimous consensus[citation needed], as opposed to a majority consensus.[3][4]. Peisers analysis was shown to be wrong [5].

I'm happy with it :-). KDP would prefer no mention of Peiser. If I read him aright, WS has stopped objecting to removing P. FG seems to have stopped contributing. Shall we try unprotecting? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your wording is ok, though I don't think it would give the subject undue weight. The last reference should be changed to something corresponding to WP:RS because you're making a statement of fact. Basically, the argument is that WP:DUE shouldn't permit a mention. There's only about a dozen mentions total -- of which about half are more parenthetical than anything. If the text is included, it should include something along the lines of Apis's one-liner. The limited references make that debatable -- it should be one sentence (my preference) or none (I wouldn't object).
I wouldn't unprotect until we hear from other editors, especially FellGleaming. Wellspring (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I think the current wording would need some tweaking. Since Wellspring wouldn't object to removing it, that would be my preferred solution at least. As it is now it implies that Oreskes said there was unanimous consensus which she clearly didn't. And indeed, the last sentence could be improved upon if nothing else. This is BLP material after all. My feeling is that trying to elaborate on this would only give it more (undue) space.
    And what has this Richard Lindzen said, anything relevant? is that last sentence about him necessary? Googling for 'Richard Lindzen' and 'Oreskes' gives even less hits than 'Benny Peiser' do.
    Maybe it would also be worth pointing out that she tried to address that many (policy-makers, the media, etc) said there wasn't a consensus among scientist. I guess it's mentioned indirectly in the first paragraph (the hypothesis) although it could be made clearer to give the study some context. The reference to her editorial in the Washington Post could be used for that as well if someone would object against it disappearing.
    As an example of the essay being mentioned in the media could be An Inconvenient Truth, that is pretty famous isn't it? Or is that not necessary? Apis (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I made the decision to remove Peiser for now. I plan on implementing the other suggestions as well since no one have opposed, Kim reverted my insertion of an inconvenient truth, I agree it's not particularly notable from a scientific pov etc but it is a very famous movie that a lot of people have seen (that is something everyone can agree on isn't it?). Anyway the idea is to explain why this essay is famous (aiv is one reason i believe?) so I'm planing on updating that part anyway. If anyone have information of other reasons why this is notable (famous citations etc) that would be welcome of course. And if anyone have objection that would also be nice to hear before I spend time on trying to make changes. Apis (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the movie is IMO quite notable in and of itself and so I would say goes towards the notability of the Oreskes article. It's certainly worth a mention-- it's probably the only way most people would have heard about Oreskes. There appeared to be a consensus about Lindzen being notable, but I wasn't here when that was being discussed so I don't know whether he applies or not. Wellspring (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing that struck me about this whole talk page is that among all of the many Wikipedia guidelines cited so far, WP:EW didn't get a mention, the section headed "Regarding the recent edit war" notwithstanding. WP:EW is the perfect guideline to address the edit war whose flames Lawrence Solomon has been fanning. In his National Post article "Wikipedia's zealots" Solomon writes "I am ... editing a page on Wikipedia" pursuant to the "right to edit Wikipedia that we all have" and then complains that his edits are quickly reverted. WP:EW is quite clear that those who foment edit wars will lose this supposedly inalienable right. Wikipedia's zeal here is commendable. Long before the disagreements escalated to this level Solomon should have backed off from trying to brute-force his edits to the article and taken his concerns to the article's talk page. The idea that an issue that cannot be resolved in an article's talk page can somehow be resolved by fighting an edit war in the article itself is very much at odds with Wikipedia's processes for maintaining a coherent product. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that the page is locked only when William Connolly and Kim Dablestein comments are added and their edits incorporated. Just an observation on an inconvenient truth. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazen (talk • contribs) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Try to actually follow the guidelines in WP:TALK and WP:NPA, Ok? (as an addition: it would be nice if you could spell our names correctly at least).--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)