Talk:William Connolley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
03 May 2008 The Opinionator: Solomon Lawrence Solomon – National Post
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, William Connolley, has edited Wikipedia as
William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)
Articles for deletion
This was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
Archive

Archives
1 Pointless Bickering

Contents

[edit] This person isn't famous or interesting

So why does he have a wikipedia page? Is it a private joke? Wikipedia shouldn't be about private jokes because people read it and take it seriously —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.210.17 (talk • contribs) .

This is not a new discussion. Most people disagree with you. See the archive (link on this page).--Stephan Schulz 15:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect most people do not disagree, but casual visitors should note that William Connolley also happens to be a Wikipedia Administrator. Note also the contrast in length and apparent important between this page which is an article about a "Senior Scientific Officer" (actually quite a lowly post) at the British Antarctic Survey and the non-article about Professor Chris Rapley, head of the BAS, which is a mere paragraph on the main BAS page. Professor Rapley has for example recently featured in a Radio 4 debate on global warming with James Lovelock. I could find no mention of this important figure, William Connolley, in the said discussions between leading scientific figures on climate change. MarkThomas 19:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mind reading aside, why don't you create a page on Professor Rapley if you think this is important? Why is an existing deficit in one part of Wikipdia a reason to create one somewhere else? --Stephan Schulz 19:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be the case that the Rapley mention is of reasonable length and appropriate, and if that's the case, then this page is disproportionate and over-extensive. I would suggest it be reduced to a few sentences. MarkThomas 19:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least that is a valid hypothesis. However, a short visit to WP:PROF and a look at Rapley's Bio tells us that he does qualify as notable without any doubt (just as recipient of multiple honorary professor positions and being awarded a CBE). So he should have a full article. --Stephan Schulz 20:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is fair comment Stephan, I will look at adding one for him and also making a better page for BAS, which deserves one - quite surprised William Connolley hasn't done this though, seeing as he actually works there. Perhaps too busy editing his own? :-) MarkThomas 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I just deleted Rapley's bio blurb as a copyvio. Dragons flight 20:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that William Connolley is a vanity page. If you disagree - shoot me. --SandyDancer 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From all appearances, the people who show up whining about this article are trying to get some sort of passive-aggressive retribution on the user. He passes notability as determined by 3 AfD's and WP:PROF. We don't care if you dislike him, get a life and make some productive edits elsewhere. --tjstrf talk 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I love the way that the whole WP:CIVIL thing goes out the window on this talk page! Hey - tjstrf - why don't you get a life? Go make some useful edits elsewhere? I don't dislike the subject of this article - who is a nobody - I just don't think it is right that he is exempt from WP:VAIN. --SandyDancer 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it is arguable whether Will passes WP:PROF or not but the observation that many people do seem to come here in retaliation seems to be accurate. JoshuaZ 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)`

I spend a lot of time doing constructive edits. It's simplistic to allege that the reason for disputing this page is to do with reliation and to be honest, a smear on all those many editors who have challenged it. The reason behind the challenges is simple; Connolley is not notable enough outside Wikipedia to merit this page. He is notable within Wikipedia and is also a pal (apparently) of J Wales and that's the reason for the page surviving. This is to do with Wikipedia being objective or not. The way the cabal rally over this page leads one to suspect not in some cases. MarkThomas 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't think anyone meant to imply that every person who makes comments about deleting this is doing to it retaliate, just that many are. If you think it should be deleted then AfD it. JoshuaZ 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There isn't any point, doing so would just invite abuse from the group of fellow admins who defend the article. --SandyDancer 10:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • He is clearly more notable than many of the crackpots that show up on AFD. But it is by no means obvious that he is more notable than some run-of-the-mill Assistant Professor who may get deleted under WP:PROF. (Is he really more than a glorified post-doc with blogs?) What I find disquieting is that so many of the keep votes did not concern themselves with independent evidence of notability. Instead, many just repeated "he is notable", "bad faith nom", and so on. That really makes it look as if a WP insider is getting special favors. Leibniz 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
To both Leibniz and Sandy's comment, I would think and hope that an AfD made by an essentially uninvolved user in good standing in the project would be taken more seriously than the previous AfDs. JoshuaZ 13:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting myself & L are indeed "uninvolved users in good standing" or that we aren't? Question not meant to be aggressive by the way I am just asking for clarification! I have had no beef with Connolley before, I have no view on him as an admin - though I suspect he is excellent in role, he wouldn't command such loyalty if he wasn't. --SandyDancer 14:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I would think that both you and Leibniz would be in that category (unless there is some interaction between you and Will that I missed). JoshuaZ 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Naw ... in my opinion he isn't even a good admin. He was snotty and rude in the only interaction I had with him. Duke53 | Talk 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This article survived three AfD votes so I don't see any point in arguing anymore about whether the subject is notable or not. The Wikipedia articles on Global warming and related subjects are probably among the most viewed articles on the subject on the English internet (judging by my Google search tests) and he is a major factor in that. He's not the first person to gain at least some notability due to his efforts on Wikipedia. The article doesn't discuss that facet of his notability to much of an extent, I assume because not many secondary sources discuss it. It might should be discussed more in the article if the sources support it. Cla68 07:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


With all due respect to everyone up above, and to Dr Connolley himself, may I suggest this debate moves on? I feel the problem with the article (as someone else said) is not its existence but that it is much too long compared to the (apparent), relative importance of its subject? I invite you to compare the length of this article to the length of these other Wikipedia articles on a few random climate science/politics "figures" that I plucked off the top of my head:

  • Dr James Hansen: approx 1800 words.
  • Dr James Lovelock: approx 980 words
  • Dr William Connolley: approx 900 words.
  • Sir John Houghton: approx 800 words.
  • Dr Robert Watson: approx 500 words
  • Sir Crispin Tickell: approx 400 words
  • Dr Stefan Rahmstorf: approx 350 words
  • Dr Michael Oppenheimer: approx 250 words

and, for comparison:

  • Sir Martin Rees (Astronomer Royal): approx 575 words

I calculated these very, very hastily so don't hold me to them. I'm making a broad-brush point here :)

It is a standard principle of most encyclopedias that the length of an article correlates with the relative importance of its subject. (You might say Wikipedia doesn't have to observe the conventions of a paper book, but even online it would be absurd to devote 500 pages to Mickey Mouse and only five pages to Winston Churchill.) IMHO, this article might be less contentious if it were a little shorter and more humble. For example, does it need to include so many publications? The article on Dr James Hansen doesn't include his publications: it links to his homepage, where he lists his own publications. Perhaps the William Connolley page should follow that example?

Also, some of the details may or may not be minutae (as someone up above said), but their relevance needs to be made clear. Some may say details like being a parish councillor distract from the more important aspects of Dr Connolley's work. Perhaps the importance of the detail is just not being spelled out? A detail like this could mean "He really wanted to be Prime Minister, but all he's managed to do is become a parish councillor". Or it could mean: "He has absolutely no interest in being Prime Minister, because he believes politics is only truly effective at the most local, community level". If the former is true, the detail is not worth including; if the latter is true, the detail is an important part of the bigger picture. Marcusswann 13:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, WP:NOT#PAPER. We should as a general rule include as much referenced data as we can whatever the subject is so long as it does not make the articles unreadable. We do not, never have, and never shall begin to remove information simply to meet some subjective standard of what is more "deserving" of disk space. --tjstrf talk 13:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


William Connolley is not notable in his field. His publications were insignificant. He is not regarded as anyone special within his field of study or research. A publication does not make someone notable. If that weren't true, there'd be literally thousands of nonsensical articles on unimportant and minor scientists flooding Wikipedia. Three failed AFDs do not mean much when there's already a WP:COI and their reasons given are inane. ~ UBeR 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you think so, then AfD it. JoshuaZ 03:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[Unproductive discussion archived to Talk:William Connolley/ArchiveBickering]. --Stephan Schulz 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible WP:AUTO problem

I've no great objection to the existence of this article, but looking back at the edit history it seems substantial parts of it were written by Dr Connolley himself. I thought this wasn't allowed? (Incidentally I also reckon the references to his being a parish councillor of a tiny village etc. give an impression of this being a vanity page, regardless of who added them.) Ben Finn 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The rule you are looking for is WP:AUTO. It is a guideline and allows for reasonable exceptions. I've checked the last year or so of edits, and have not found anything substantial inserted by William (he fixed a few links, spelling, and so on). Very early in the articles history he added a couple of publications. The parish councillor (what is that, anyways?) was added by User:Ssilvers, probably because he found it noteworthy. --Stephan Schulz 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms? This person has no criticism?

Clearly this person is both notable and above criticism (not). The guy rules over his climate change pages like a Green Party overlord and instantly reverts anything he deems unholy. Plus this smells like a vanity page to me.--Rotten 05:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you find anything that fullfills the requirements of WP:BLP, feel free to add it. Wikipedia arguments aren't. For the rest, see old talk and three AdDs that found otherwise.--Stephan Schulz 07:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
When Garfield the cat has a criticisms section and this guy doesn't, something is out of wack. But I don't want to delete, having his own page here (obviously written by his kooky Green party pals) just shows how bad of an "encyclopedia" Wikipedia really is. Maybe I'll give my Grandma a page when I get some time later. Cheers.--Rotten 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but sooner or later, somebody else will. I'll try to be gentle. Garfield is not a living person. In related news, neither is Santa Claus. Both, however, are a bit more widely known than William, and may have attracted some criticism verifiable from reliable sources. If I wanted to totally offset your world view, I would also point out that by deleting something, you will not add a criticism section. --Stephan Schulz 07:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well actually, to follow on what you said, if someone was really notable enough to deserve such a long article on Wikipedia, you would expect that he would have been the subject of some criticism somewhere no? (perhaps not as much as Garfield or Santa, but still) --Childhood's End 13:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT paper. The length of an article has nothing to do with notability of the subject. Either a subject is notable enough for an article, or not. Also, the article is a mere two pages, half of that references and publications. But again, feel free to add relevant and verifiable criticism. --Stephan Schulz 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
He's been the subject of plenty of criticism[1], and rightfully so. The fact that his vanity-page yet lives, or that such criticism is not at least reflected in said page, speaks volumes about the Good Ol' Boy culture of Wikipedia. I grow more disgusted with this web site each day. Note that this opinion would rapidly change if I were allowed to have my own article, too. So, how 'bout it? Can I? Pretty please? --70.105.253.147 21:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are not generally condconsidered a good source, especially not if they are two years out of date. And given that you have been participating a whole whopping day, your digust cannot be that big. Or have you possibly just forgotten to log in? If you have a couple of scientific publications and are mentioned in major print publications, you can of course have your own article. Just find a worthy opponent like User: Ed Poor who thinks you are notable. Or swim down Niagara Falls, or be elected President of the United States. We are not very picky. --Stephan Schulz 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia articles are not generally condiered [sic] a good source . . ." Yeah, try telling that to William. ~ UBeR 22:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a huge difference between the two Uber...but then, you know that already. Guettarda 23:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Difference between what? They're the same thing. ~ UBeR 16:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
So are my feelings only valid from the point when I begin making edits, or is it possible that I've felt disillusioned with what I've seen as a clear bias on Wikipedia for some time now? As for logging in, I had an account in the early days of Wikipedia (2002 I believe), but forgot the password long ago, and almost never logged in. Having witnessed the problems related to user-page vandals, I probably wouldn't bother anyway -- especially considering that registering brings me no benefits. An IP address should be enough for others to identify me[2], but if you like I can start signing with a pseudonym. Besides, you clearly place no value on the opinions of registered users, since you don't count the criticisms I sourced as worthy. Incidentally, if I did happen to find a peer critique of Mr. Connolley that was two years old, would you accept it? --70.105.253.147 00:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If you like that, me and Stephan both broke the 3RR rule, however I was banned for 24 hours and Stephan was warned. Wikipedia is clearly unbiased, right? Haha! --Rotten 04:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
With that statement you just demonstrate that you don't understand either WP:3RR or WP:BLP. Have a nice day.... --Stephan Schulz 08:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I fully understand them and I understand that WP:BLP didn't apply here. The fact is that the subject of this article edited his own biography and favorable and lasting ways. This was a start for criticism of this person.--Rotten 11:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It goes more to show Atlant doesn't understand WP:3RR, and he fully demonstrated that he didn't with his further comments. Regardless, neither Dr. Schulz or Rotten violated 3RR, but Rotten was indeed blocked for 24 hours for "violating 3RR." ~ UBeR 18:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what a "peer critique" could comprise, but if it is published by a reliable source and properly attributable taking into account WP:BLP, certainly. An IP adress only identifies you if it's static. And of course anonymity has no influence on the validity of your arguments. It does, however, influence whether people take the argument serious. --Stephan Schulz 00:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Which "people"? You've already made it clear that you do not take the arguments of registered users seriously. --70.105.253.147 01:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. For registered users, I can look at their contributions and arguments over time, and form an opinion. Some of them I take serious, some I dismiss as irrelevant, and some are borderline cases. The world (and Wikipedia) is to big to reason purely from first principles. I do take someones history into account before I decide how much time I spend with his or her arguments. But a two year old RfC on an open wiki and since superceded by two ArbCom cases is about as useful as phlogiston.--Stephan Schulz 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
All this is irrelevant to the article. Simple question - are you aware of any reliable sources of criticism? If so - please provide them. If not, then there really isn't anything to discuss here. Guettarda 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added some relevent criticism.--Rotten 12:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Um. You have no source for the criticism, neither reliable nor unreliable. All you have is evidence for the act. And that act is in full agreement with WP:AUTO (quote: "However, in clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. [..] Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on.". Anyways, WP:BLP requires multiple independent reliable sources, and you have not one applicable source. Reverted again under the BLP exception. If you insist, I will take this to AN/I. --Stephan Schulz 13:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Look, William Connelly made changes to this biography, some of which cast him in a better light and some of which still stand to this day. It should be noted that this biography has been edited by the subject, if Wikipedia is to retain any credibility as an independent encyclopedia, it should be noted when users are editing their own biography. --Rotten 13:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
For that purpose, there exists Template:Notable Wikipedian. And I don't see how the edit you link to "cast him in a better light" - it mostly fixes a number of errors. Anyways, all this is irrelevant. WP:BLP applies and is intentionally one of the most strictly enforced policies on Wikipedia.--Stephan Schulz 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Stephen, are you and William lovers?65.12.145.148 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Who is Stephen? --Stephan Schulz 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for Deletion

I have nominated this page for deletion as there is no evidence whatsoever of notabilty. (If everyone with similar notability had a page Wikipedia would look like a phone book, which is not its purpose). Perhaps the few ardent members of his fan club could start a MySpace page for him.67.141.235.203 18:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed tag from page. Subject is notable as a climatologist and also as a Wikipedian. The article has survived afd before. Vsmith 19:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No, he's not. See criteria. Blogging doesn't count. And notable in Wiki for posting in Wiki??? I guess if Paris Hilton can be famous for being famous, so can WMC. Thanks for devaluing the work of every Wiki editor. (This is not intended to be [[3]])67.141.235.203 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subliminal Vandalism

I think it evident that someone is trying to disparage William Connolley's fine reputation. As evidence I submit the photo used in the article. Upon full resolution, it is evident that the unnatural, almost twisted, profile was selected for one reason only: To highlight Mr. Connolley's failure to properly keep his nose hairs in check. This is information of the most personal nature, and if someone had written it about him in the article, it would have been excised immediately in the proper quest to combat vandalism. But in a picture like this, the vandal was able to slide it in, in such a way as to only affect the viewer/reader subliminally. I urge the immediate removal of this picture in the name of WP:BLP.

[edit] Why is the Principal Investigator of the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System not given a similar Vanity Page as his junior William Connolley?

He is William Connolley's boss's, boss's boss after all. I followed the link provided to http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/BAS_Science/programmes2005-2010/ACES/index.html

Where William Connolley's name is not mentioned at all, but it clearly states that the Principal Investigator of the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System (ACES) is Dr John King. I then checked for him on Wikipedia and lo and behold he doesn't have a page. If William Connolley who is a highly prolific editor and Admin on Wikipedia truly believed that he is himself notable enough to be on Wikipedia, then he surely would have written a page on the much more notable Dr. John King. Since he has not done so over the past four years while his own page has been on Wikipedia, he clearly does not believe that his superior is notable enough for Wikipedia. Thus exposing this page for what it really is - a vanity page, pure and simple. ~ Rameses 15:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So many errors here that it is hard to put them all together. First, notability does not follow hierarchy. This is particularly true in science. Secondly, Wikipedia editors have no duty to write any particular article. This should be rather obvious, given that we are all volunteers here. If you feel strongly about it, I suggest you write it. And finally, given that the article originally was written by User:Ed Poor, why do you address William? --Stephan Schulz 15:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


When did I address William?
You seem to imply that a clique should be able to put up vanity pages about the other members of the clique, this is simply a neat loophole to circumvent the rules. ~ Rameses 23:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so in your world William and Ed (now on Conservapedia) are best buds? And do you intend to answer any of the points? --Stephan Schulz 00:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info

I don't watch this page, and I won't be after this, but: I'm no longer a parish councillor (since may 2007) and I haven't posted to sci.env for... oh, ages William M. Connolley 18:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added some criticism

I added some much needed criticism.--71.232.157.145 06:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted this attack, vandalising Wikipedia in pursuit of intra-wiki disputes.JQ 06:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly this user has compromised his own vanity page by editing it, no? You have to agree with that? --71.232.157.145 07:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Mu. --Stephan Schulz 07:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"No" would have sufficed. ~ -- UBeR (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it wouldn't. "Mu" is a more elegant and logical answer. The question presupposed that this is a vanity page. According to our article on the subject, "mu" can be interpreted as follows: "Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions." MastCell Talk 21:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well clearly this needs to be mentioned on this webpage. I will add it in later.--71.232.157.145 07:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst (The sound of yet another coat of teflon being sprayed on WMC's armor.) SagredoDiscussione? 08:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny, it seemed to me more like the sound of yet another anonymous troll attempting to harass a respected scientist who contributes to Wikipedia under his own name. Sadly, anonymous trolls are an endlessly renewable resource - experts willing to put up with this place, not so much. MastCell Talk 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Snarfed. --22:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Can we now delete this ridiculous Wiki article?67.141.235.203 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it does not meet the notability requirements for biographies or academics, then you can consider nominating it for deletion via the articles-for-deletion process. Generally, however, only registered users can nominate articles for deletion through this process, and bad-faith nominations are frowned upon. MastCell Talk 19:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A quick reading of the article should allow anyone to realize this is good faith. Seriously, for what is he notable? A former climate modeler? A software designer? A failed politician? Having some papers published? With all respect, this is not MySpace.67.141.235.203 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
OK. If those are your concerns, then the appopriate way to address them is to nominate the article for deletion via WP:AfD. That's the only way it can be deleted at this point, so it's probably not that useful to keep arguing the case here. MastCell Talk 21:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
In truth, I believe it's good to discuss these issues before WP:AfD.65.12.145.148 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur Status

From his letter of resignation (from a blog?!) - "I expect to continue my (now amateur) interest in climate; my pet blog will remain at least for a while - feel free to join me there"

Amateur as in antonym of professional--as in, it's no longer his profession. I think you can certainly make the case that he no longer does those activities as part of a profession. I think though when most people see the word "amateur" they don't think "antonym of professional" but more like "not good." ~ UBeR 21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "prominent in debates about climate change between 2001 and 2007"

"prominent in debates about climate change between 2001 and 2007" should go. I don't know of any notable event that would make him a "prominent debater" in global warming arena. Made a few blog postings, sure. But he certainly isn't anything close to like the Hansens or Lindezens who are prominent in the global warming debate. ~ UBeR 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish his "supporters" would recognize that the absence of a Wikipedia page does not mean that his credentials, intelligence, knowledge, or position on this issue are in doubt. There are many intelligent, knowledgeable minds out there who do not get Wikipedian recognition. I've grown to respect WMC a little more as a person, but the fact remains: until this person does something notable he does not deserve a Wikipedian page.--71.232.157.145 (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The subject fulfills the basic requirements of Wikipedia: There are multiple reliable sources about him. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
He was prominent here. Isn't Wikipedia the centre of the universe? :) Guettarda (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note about Solomons Column

Hmm, my edit summary was a bit sloppy. I think it violates wp:blp, it's criticism from a blog/column, so it's not notable or from a reliable source. etc.
– Apis (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I just went back and re-read:
√ - Wikipedia:Verifiability
√ - Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
√ - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
√ - Wikipedia:Reliable sources
√ - Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid
I don't see where two edits run afoul of any of these.
Solomon's article in the National Post is perfectly acceptable. The National Post is a large Canadian newspaper. Solomon's article was not self-published and was subject to editorial oversight. It represents the most extensive coverage of Connolley in the press to date. The New Yorker article cited gives him just two paragraphs. The Nature article is behind a paywall; if it's been quoted properly in this e-mail, then it made only passing reference to Connolley. (In fact, I don't think this article meets the specific requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) without the National Post reference.)
Connolley's blog is self-published but also suitable as a reference since it is published by the subject of the article himself.
Note that as written, my did not express any opinion on Wikipedia's part; it just stated each man's position. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind too much if this goes in (in proper form) or not. But the National Post and Solomon in particular are not reliable sources on anything related to global warming. As for the article in question, the first sentence is hyperbole, and the second is simply wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a strong view, except that, if the criticism goes in, so must the reply. But I think this case illustrates a broader point that a distinction for WP:RS based solely on publication form (newspapers reliable, blogs not) can't work. Obviously, for example, RealClimate is a much more reliable source on climate change than the National Post (actually it's more reliable than the New York Times, which slips up more often than it should).JQ (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not an article it's a opinion column. Since when did we include random criticism from columns/blogs into BLPs? It's a clear violation of WP:BLP in my opinion...
– Apis (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, this is not just some blog post, if I understand the National Post's Web site correctly. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, it originated as a blog post, and then was promoted to whatever status it has now. It still shows signs of the high-quality editorially controlled cut'n paste... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) (It says "blog" in the url if that's any indication: "http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx". Trivia: that's the original title btw, they sneakily changed it to the opinionator later.)
– Apis (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
We presently have 413 links to the National Post -- it looks like there's some precedent for using this as a reference. As for Solomon, his book on global warming is one of the most prominent of the skeptics'; like it or not, it's #82 on Amazon's Canadian bestseller list. (#291, U.S.; #5748, U.K.). It's been reviewed in the Vancouver Sun,[4] Washington Times[5] and Forbes[6] (not to mention the Prince George Citizen).[7] None of this makes him right … or wrong; it does, however, make his criticism significant. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Note also that the National Post does not have to be a scientific journal in this context nor does Solomon have to be a tenured professor. The topic of the article is about Connolley's role on Wikipedia, not ice core measurements from the Penny Ice Cap. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I see comments about Solomon's piece starting as a blog post but is that relevant if it subsequently ended up under the aegis of the newspaper's editorial supervision? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Again: I didn't complain about the National Post being a reliable source, I reverted it because it is criticism from a opinion column used as source in a BLP.
– Apis (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

←Heh... take away the professional editing and toss in a few misspellings, and that column could easily be any of a dozen "zOMG admin abuse!" screeds on WP:AN/I. Why not quote the lead sentence: "Next to Al Gore, William Connolley may be the world's most influential person in the global warming debate." :) In all seriousness, it's probably fine to note that a climate-change skeptic criticized WMC in an op-ed for the National Post. The footnote to the "blogs" portion of WP:BLP suggests that these sorts of blogs can be used, albeit very scrupulously, in BLP's. I don't see the big deal - nothing in that column is going to change anyone's mind. It's a guy venting about his edits being reverted, albeit from a fairly public platform. MastCell Talk 22:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Again: I didn't complain about the National Post being a reliable source, I reverted it because it is criticism from a opinion column used as source in a BLP" … so if Margaret Thatcher criticizes Gordon Brown in a newspaper column, we don't quote her in our Gordon Brown article (and cite the column as a source)? After all, we're not saying that we criticize (or endorse) Connolley; we're just quoting criticism from a major global warming skeptic in a major newspaper. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As I see it, there are 3 relevant editorial questions here:
  1. When are comments critical of an article's subject and published in a major newspaper column allowed? Not allowed? If disallowed, is that because they violate WP:BLP or WP:V?
  2. If an newspaper column originally started out as a blog entry but then later appeared as a column, does that disqualify it as a self-published blog post? Even if it's later published?
  3. Can a newspaper column such as Solomon's establish a subject's notability per WP:BIO?
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I doubt it, although I guess it would depend on the circumstances. On the other hand, Solomon isn't Margret Thatcher and William isn't Gordon Brown. I presume that we should include that Solomon also have said that "Next to Al Gore, William Connolley may be the world's most influential person in the global warming debate" if we are to use his column as a reliable source for this? I still think opinion columns should be used very carefully as sources for BLPs.
– Apis (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As for the rest of what Solomon writes, it's mainly criticism of Wikipedia and Wikipedias internal affairs. He can hardly be considered an authority on WP (as far as I am aware).
– Apis (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure which of the questions you're answering.
If Solomon's article does not establish notability (I think it does), then this article probably doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF, given the lightness of coverage elsewhere. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't a response to one of the three questions. I still don't feel the column is even remotely relevant. I guess you could argue that since Solomon has written a book skeptical of global warming, his opinion on global warming would be notable enough for inclusion in WP somewhere. However, if you read the article it is manly criticism of WP and Connolleys role as an administrator and his editing style, I don't see how Solomons view on that is relevant.
The article appear to have been up for deletion more than once already and the result have been to keep it (even without mention of Solomons column).
– Apis (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through each of the first 4 AfDs and it's not clear they were open and shut keeps by today's norms:
Nowadays I see the community asking for more specifics as to just how an article meets our notability requirements and I've certainly seen articles go through multiple AfDs before eventual deletion.
I'll also note that there are possibly sources out there that aren't cited; Google News archive and Google Scholar searches have improved a lot in the last 18 months allowing us to find more references in the case of otherwise marginally notable subjects. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If you do not believe that the articles subject is notable, then start a new AfD. The concept of using an argument such as "if we do not use this, then the subject is not notable" as an inclusion parameter, instead of basing it on reliable sources and the guidelines for biographies is (to my eyes) very wrong.
The Solomon article is an Op-Ed/Editorial, and as such it is not reliable for anything other than Mr. Solomon's opinion. And since Mr. Solomon's opinion raises the red flag (take the opinion that Connolley is the 2nd most important person...) - its definitively out. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)