Talk:Vincent R. Gray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Question

Why is a chemist described as a climate scientist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potemkine (talk • contribs) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Because he says he is, apparently. ;-) Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Rather because apparently, anyone who is trained in a natural science field that touches the climate can be called a "climate scientist". This language is used throughout Wikipedia in climate articles. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This [1] is not a RS. Gray is not a climatologist just because he says he is. As near as can be told, he's more into coal. I don't trust that for the paper count either: he clearly doesn't have 12 in climate (E&E doesn't count, obviously, since its not a proper journal) and have no reason to belive the 100 William M. Connolley (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source / notable?

All this:

Dr. Vincent Gray is a New Zealand-based geologist. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England and according to the National Resources Stewardship Project has had a long career as a research scientist in Britain, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. is sourceless.

Furthermore, there is little evidence here for notability William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What can you disagree with in this sentence? That he has a college diploma? Or that according to the NRSP, he had a long career? Sources are needed for "likely challengeable" items, not for an article's every word... --Childhood's End (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
He has published more than 100 scientific papers --85.165.73.186 (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
According to the ISI Web of Science database, he has published 10. Raymond Arritt (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Haven't we been over this? Many of his publications (by his own admission) are in less than reputable venues such as LaRouche, E&E, etc. Counting those, the 100 number is probably accurate. Oren0 (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Since this is very much in doubt, as has been pointed out, so it shouldn't go in. I doubt btw. that you could claim even 100 scientific papers using less than reputable venues. I can buy 100 articles on global warming, but that is hardly something that is worth mentioning. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's not worth mentioning. But discrediting sources because they repeat the 100 number when we don't know if it's true or not seems unreasonable (see below). Oren0 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
To the contrary: we know the 100 number is wrong, so we know its an unreliable source William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to hear how you know this. Have you counted his publications in LaRouche, E&E, and the like? It didn't say 100 publications in ISI. Oren0 (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Boring. Go on, have the last word and the rest of us can give up on this tedium William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Publication record and credibility of NRSP

ISI says Gray has 10 pubs, all between 1980 and 1986, all having to do with coal. Since Natural Resources Stewardship Project's "100 publications" is off by an order of magnitude, its credibility is toast I'm going to scrap everything else that comes from that source per WP:BLP. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is essentially about protecting an individuals reputation and such. I dont think that it can be threatening to V. Gray's reputation that his WP article states that he published 100 articles rather than 10. Strange approach if you really want to delete this. Also, if he published in publications that are not caught by ISI, I see no problem with this for the purpose of this page. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I think thats fair. Unless someone comes in to put some reason why Gray is notable, I'm going to AFD this very soon, unless the festive season intervenes William M. Connolley (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
No-one did, so I have William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP issue

I think there can be a WP:BLP problem with the moot change of article's name from Vincent Gray (scientist) to Vincent Gray (consultant). I am far from certain that we all use the same definition for "scientist" (some seem to think it's restrained to having a certain publication record, while that's not what the dictionnaries tell us). The guy reviewed every IPCC report and he would not be a scientist? That would open the door to some questions... --Childhood's End (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He calls himself a consultant, so it's hard to see how this objection has merit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
All scientists on Wikipedia whose name is already taken by another article are diff'ed with(scientist). This article would likely be the first and only with (consultant), which would suggest that he's not a scientist. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Is he a scientist? By what definition? How can you tell? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you suggest that non-scientists can be involved in the IPCC review process? --Childhood's End (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes they can. If there was a vetting process, people would complain that they were being excluded. Best to let everyone comment. Surely you're not opposed to such openness? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh I am not opposed. Nor would I be to openness towards the comments made. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A real kindergarten eh? [2] Forcing me to the 3RR rule instead of being mature and try to see your wrongs here before making potentially libelous edits. As an admin, you'll certainly be interested to read WP:REF (you know, the part where they say that sources are for likely challengeable claims). Then please have the maturity to revert yourself. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you're the one who mentioned his web page, you obviously know where to find the information. Is it really such a burdensome task to add a link to it? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Oh wait, you'll delete it again because you dont like the NRSP. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I missed the fun. Anyway, being an IPCC reviewer doesn't make you a scientist, obviously. Mentionning it prominently in 99% of cases makes you a desperate septic. But the move to his full name probably fixes the problem William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

More tedia... we start Vincent R. Gray is a New Zealand-based coal chemist[1][2] and climate consultant who is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England[3]. - so - 1,2 are publications, and don't support the present tense. I have a feeling that he is retired - does anyone know his current status? And what does "climate consultant" mean, is this anything other than a self-description (if so from where?) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Climate consultant

William, this is silly. The NZ herald calls him a climate consultant. He also calls himself a climate consultant. If a reliable source calls him by a certain title that's good enough. How many sources would be enough? 2? 5? 100? I've never seen any Wikipedia rule that says that one reliable source isn't good enough simply because, as you put it, "you can't believe everything you read in the papers." Oren0 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another. I don't think we want to go through every climate-related individual and make sure there are large numbers of citations for claim, do we? Oren0 (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, that source also says he's published over 100 papers, whereas the ISI database shows 10. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
People are not necessarily reliable sources about themselves, obviously, as RA points out. But I'm happy to say he calls himself a CC William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not just that he calls himself that, the NZ Herald calls him that as well. Saying that he "calls himself" a climate consultant has a very negative connotation given that we have a reliable source that says so as well. Rather than keep fighting about this, I've listed it on Wikipedia:Third opinion (since the dispute is between myself and WMC, RA hasn't offered an opinion one way or the other). Oren0 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any indication he has actually done any "climate consulting" (whatever that is)? Are there reports that he consulted for corporation X or agency Y? That would solve the question neatly. (The bit about the 100 articles demonstrates that the blurb in the paper can't be taken seriously; they're obviously just repeating Gray's self-description without checking the facts.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. I don't see the bit about 100 articles in the NZ Herald article. Maybe I'm just dense and I'm missing it?
  2. He gets into publication in the interview. He talks about being published by the "Tech Central Science Foundation" (whatever that is) and Energy and Environment. While these aren't peer reviewed publications (he readily admits that in the article) and likely won't count in your ISI searches, that doesn't necessarily mean that he hasn't published 100 papers counting these.
  3. Again, it's reported by a reliable source. I'm yet to see any reason why that shouldn't be trusted. Not to be a dick, but I could probably go to the Wikipedia page of a certain editor and place "he calls himself" or "he claims" in front of lots of things that are only reported in self-published sources, let alone in only a single newspaper. I wouldn't do that because it's insulting to the subject. Oren0 (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
We could call him a "climate consultant who has not been reported to have performed climate consulting." (Just kidding.) More later. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think a modicum of common sense is needed in this situation. If Mr. Gray referred to himself as "The Grand Climate Wizard of Cambridge", or even "Climate Guru", clearly we could scoff and dismiss. However, with at least one significant source (NZ Herald) referring to him as a climate consultant, I don't see any real reason why he shouldn't be able to claim the title. What are we fighting about, the definition of the word "consult"? I don't think it matters if he's written ten papers or a hundred; if certain people ask him questions about climate from time to time, he's free to label himself a climate consultant, and I don't think it detracts from the respectability of the article at all to follow suit. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The point about the papers is that sources relying on him have been mislead. The NZ herald is clearly relying on Grays self-description. We have no reliable source indicating that he has ever done any consulting William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record, I was aware that the NZ Herald was relying on his self-description. I don't see how he's misleading someone with a massively subjective job title. Anyone can be a "consultant" if they so choose to be. There's not a test one needs to pass in order to wear the badge. There's no "consultant degree" that gives one the right to put initials after one's name. Theoretically, as long as he's advised anyone at any time, he'd technically be a climate consultant. Of course, this would make me a consultant in about a thousand other areas, but that's a different issue - and, you have to admit, this man IS making the papers in a climate-related story. It seems that the opposition here wants concrete proof that he has made money, signed a contract, walked around with a clipboard, or other things that the proverbial consultant does - but none of that is needed. I've thought about the opposite point of view, and the only real reason I can think that you would oppose letting Mr. Gray have this title is that you are unwilling to give him the recognition or "honor" of being a climate consultant. The man HAS climate experience - wrote a book about climate change, founded a climate science coalition, reviewed climate change reports - I'd say that it would be a further stretch to claim he hasn't given advice or knowledge to anyone. Tanthalas39 (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree that the NZ herald isn't indep in this case. Now you've reduced the state on "consultant" to something so weak that its meaningless. In which case, we should leave it out. Consultant strongly suggests professional expertise - there is no evidence of that here. Please stop the meaningless habit of using IPCC reviewer as a "status". It isn't. Its puffery overwhelmingly used by skeptics with no other credentials William M. Connolley (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's clear you are vehemently opposed to this. As a mere third opinion, I will stand aside. However, you may want to work on your debate tone. A tad prickly. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Hey. I saw this page listed on WP:3O, so here's my take. If you look around, the term "climate consultant" has been used to describe other people: Dr. M. R. Morgan, Dr. Keith D. Hage (here), the same two and a bunch more here, and even Al Gore has been described as such. While it is a term that's certainly awkward, I think it's okay to call him a climate consultant. At the very least, "and calls himself" is pejorative and should be removed. Does this help? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion has gone way overboard, and I concur with your stance, especially with your last point. The guy also reviewed the IPCC reports, submitted comments, and is sought by some media to discuss climate science. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see you providing any evidence that wiki uses the term to describe people. And the argument "elsewhere, X has been called Y therefore here it is OK to call Z a Y" is obviously nonsensical. There is nothing wrong with the term "climate consultant" in general, though it can be abused. Its amusing that you pick Morgan and Hage [3] since this is a clear example of septics puffing themselves up with meaningless credentials. Similarly, the use of IPCC reviewer as a status (as Ce attempts to use it) is also meaningless. Someone sought by the media is called a "pundit" - I'd be happy with "climate pundit" for Gray - would that be an acceptable compromise? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
We can't call him that. Nobody reliable has. I really feel like the other editors that have come from WP:3O have settled this. There's no reason not to call him a climate consultant given that he's reported as such in at least one reliable source. It's not like the term confers any expertise. It's unreasonable to assume that some record of his consulting work would be reported in a reliable source, as that wouldn't be newsworthy. Oren0 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The 3O people agree that the NZH calling him a CC is merely reporting his self description; henace, as I said before, we have no RS for the claim. We can continue to call him self-described, if you like, though. If you don't like "pundit" then you're dismissing Ce's stuff about media as irrelevant, and I agree there. So we're back to having no RS for him being a "consultant" in any meaningful sense. If you're now saying that his being a consultant isn't notable, then fine: lets leave it out William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you're reading their comments with rose colored glasses. User:HelloAnnyong: While it is a term that's certainly awkward, I think it's okay to call him a climate consultant. At the very least, "and calls himself" is pejorative and should be removed. User:Tanthalas39: However, with at least one significant source (NZ Herald) referring to him as a climate consultant, I don't see any real reason why he shouldn't be able to claim the title...It seems that the opposition here wants concrete proof that he has made money, signed a contract, walked around with a clipboard, or other things that the proverbial consultant does - but none of that is needed. I really don't see how you have a leg to stand on here. And I didn't say that being a consultant isn't notable, I said it isn't very meaningful. Both people who came from 3O seem to agree with myself and CE: he should be listed without "he claims" as a climate consultant. Do you really want to take this further? We could go the RfC route but I think we both know where it would end up. It's time to bow to the WP:CONSENSUS and let this one go. Oren0 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
We seem to have run out of things to say here, certainly William M. Connolley (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You could always start an RfC... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Compromise

I think we're getting away from why he's notable in the opening sentence anyway. He's neither notable for being a coal chemist (which, as stated above, may or may not be his current profession) nor for being a climate consultant. He's notable for being a climate skeptic (he's been interviewed in this regard several times, that's why he survived AfD), author, and head of the NZ Climate science coalition. Therefore, I propose:

Vincent R. Gray is a New Zealand-based global warming skeptic, climate author, and founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

Is that acceptable? Oren0 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Its progress. Don't wiki-link skeptic, it has nothing to do with GWS. I don't think you should air-brush out his former life; the article is about him, not just the recent excitement. How about:
Vincent R. Gray (born London 1922) is a retired coal chemist, New Zealand-based global warming skeptic, climate author, and one of the founders of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More info

I finally found something about him...

Dr. Gray was born 24.3.1922 in London, UK. Won a major scholarship to Emanuel College, Cambridge in Chemistry 1939. First Class Honours degree (B A) in Chemistry 1942, Ph D in 1946, (also M A). Petrocarbon Ltd, Manchester, 1946. Institute Pasteur, Paris, 1947-1949. 1949-1950, amongst the first Post-Doctoral fellows at the National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada. Returned to UK 1950, and worked for National Coal Board, Cheltenham, Timber Research Association, High Wycombe, and Ministry of Works, London. 1970 appointed first Director, Building Research Association of New Zealand. Subsequently forensic scientists with the Department of Scientific Research, and Chief Chemist, Coal Research. 1987 to 1991 I was a visiting professor at Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, and at the Teachers University in Kunming, Yunnan China, [4]

Shall I put it in? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, if you think it's relevant. Oren0 (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
WP discourages including birthdates for marginally notable individuals. See Wikipedia:Blp#Privacy_of_birthdays. Since Gray's notability is marginal (at best), I've deleted the d.o.b. His approximate age can be inferred from the dates of his degrees. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK. But it does suggest including year of birth. There is little point in leaving people guessing (especially for people with degrees during the war, which could easily delay things) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Something like "born 1922 in London" should be fine. The mention of London is worthwhile since he's worked in several countries. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)