Talk:William M. Gray/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Personal exchange

I believe a personal exchange documented on someone's blog is not sufficiently reliable for a BLP. William Connelly reverted my removal of this text. I'm not reverting back immediately, but I think it's problematic. Is there any other source confirming the viewpoints expressed in that blog? We should try to locate a more reliable source, or I think it should be removed. ATren 14:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Investigating further, it turns out that RealClimate is also a blog. I've removed both blog-sourced claims until better sources can be identified. ATren 15:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. RealClimate is a blog. The material being referenced is self published and not peer reviewed. I quote from WP:BLP:
"Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links (see above).
Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person that is controversial, or derogatory, or impossible to verify otherwise, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below)."
If this criticism is valid there should be other references available. Also, blogs do not write critiques, people do. The article being referenced is anonymous. Please cite the authorities who wrote the article.
--GoRight 18:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Please note WP:SPS: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
RealClimate most certainly qualifies. Also, the critique is about the person's work, not the person. Gmb92 05:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And the sentence following that in WP:SPS states: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources." I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but clearly there is a disconnect here, and either the policy or the practice needs to change. ATren 05:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, the critique is about Gray's work, not Gray. Gmb92 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: BLP = Biography of Living Persons of which this article is one. It makes no distinction about whether the content is regarding the person or their work and your point is splitting hairs at best.
Actually, in an article that is a biography of a living person why should there be criticism of their work at all, unless of course it is self criticism? But that is a separate point. --GoRight 21:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell William Gray has not contributed significantly to the body of knowledge known as "Global Warming." I don't think any of his statements are peer reviewed and it appears most of them are used by others for advancing political viewpoints and that the criticism of those statements are also part of a political response. Therefore, I don't think blogs are appropriate sources. There is plenty of coverage in mainstream sources of his statements and the response of his critics. We should stay away from the blogs. --DHeyward 05:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I find direct views from qualified experts at least as reliable as views from a journalist, mainstream or not. WP:SPS clearly allows for this self-published exception. What qualifies RC as a source is that their contributors have published relevant studies in peer-reviewed journals, which is more than I can say about Gray. Gmb92 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I found DH's logic odd: WG hasn't contrib to GW; his stuff isn't PR and is used politically; *Therefore* blogs aren't appropriate. The *Therefore* makes no sense, quite the opposite: Gray is working in the blogosphere, *therefore* blogs *are* appropriate within thie article. But note that the only reason anyone takes WG seriously (to the extent anyone does) is because of the argument-from-authority William M. Connolley 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
First, BLP clearly states that an author's own unpublished words are acceptable regarding himself. Second, well-sourced criticism has been found and added to the article. Why the insistence on adding your own unpublished criticism? ATren 17:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for cryptic edit comment. The following paragraph clearly documents peer criticism - no, not so. There is no crit of his wurblings on GW William M. Connolley 18:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Then we should include some criticism from the cited source (a Denver newspaper), not from a blog. ATren 18:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The "therefore" is for the WP:SPS exception for blogs. Since the field of relevance here is politics, not science, RC shouldn't be given an exception. The RC article is not science. It is specifically calling out a single person. I know of no scientifically reputable article that attacks the author instead of their views. "Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming" title shows that this is commentary about a person. It is commentary, not science. IT was not titled "Thermohaline Circulation and Global Warming" or "Evaporation and Global Warming" which might have been usable scientific articles. Even the harshest rebuttals in scientific journals don't call out the previous authors. Science is about hypothesis, experiment and refinement, not ad hominem. William Gray has been roundly criticized for his ad hominem arguments and the RC source is not any better than that. It should not be inlcuded simply because it is not science just as we wouldn't cite William Gray's blog in the Global Warming article. --DHeyward 19:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Now I know what you mean, but you're wrong. This is about science. I don't know whether you've failed to read the RC piece, or are incapable of reading it, but you've certainly failed to understand it. Is is not an attack on the person, but on the persons failed science. The RC article is about Grays science, or rather on the flaws in it, not about Gray. And Gray doesn't have a blog William M. Connolley 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Well then put you criticism in a place appropriate for discussing the man's work rather than the man himself which this page is unquestionably about. --GoRight 21:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Wiki doesn't have a page for stuff as nonsensical as Gray writes; but arguing that Grays work doesn't belong on Grays page is bizarre William M. Connolley 22:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And you wonder why I think your neutrality is lacking at times?  :) But just for the record, it was Gmb92 above that was making the distinction. Gray's work certainly belongs on Gray's page, I just question whether your opinions belong here.  :) --GoRight 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree the "therefore" is a non sequitur, but I think the point is rather robust in the policy: regardless of the authenticity or credibility of a self-published author, it should not and cannot be used as a criticism for a biography of a living person. Yes, people play into his arguments because of fallacious appeals to his (improper) authority, but that's what is when we listen to other scientists--just appeals to authority, but in these contexts, the authority is appropriate to consider. Regardless of his authority on subject, however, if there is something worthwhile to say about Dr. Gray, then chances are it has been published in sources appropriate to reference. This is the same thing WP:RS will tell you. If appropriate sources have not made the claims, Wikipedia is in no place to make them either. ~ UBeR 22:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
About Dr Gray, perhaps. About his "science", RC is a perfectly reasonable source William M. Connolley 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to get into a revert war here, William. You've said the criticism charge needed elaboration, and I've found some text from that newspaper source which does address Gray's GW research. Please consider this as a better alternative for criticism of his GW stance, than material sourced to a blog. ATren 18:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your version of "not getting into a revert war" appears to be failing to mark your reverts as such. Please do, and if you're going to claim the moral high ground do please stay there or remove your false claims William M. Connolley 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
My point (obviously not conveyed clearly) was that this was not a simple revert, but an effort to convey the criticism using an independent, third party source. If you misunderstood my words, I apologize. ATren 00:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You should mark non-simple reverts as reverts, too. I understood your words at [1] clearly enough, they simply failed to describe your edit William M. Connolley 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
And I've already apologized twice for that edit comment, which I really believed at the time conveyed the fact that this was a revert. I can't change it, because edit comments can't be edited, so what else can I do at this point to rectify the situation? Can admins change edit comments? ATren 15:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
No you haven't, because your apology was conditional on my misunderstanding, which I hadn't William M. Connolley 15:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, but I've tried multiple times now to apologize, and I'm obviously not succeeding. So why don't you craft the words of a more appropriate apology, post it here or on my talk page, and I will sign it, just so there is no more confusion. OK? ATren 15:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The moment has passed; don't worry about it. But conditional apologies are irritating, I've heard far too many from politicians. My policy is to mark all reverts with (rv) if there is any doubt. Unless I forget, of course William M. Connolley 15:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The RC source probably belongs. It's possibly comparable to a journalistic source, but I wish we had something better. However, the "Aged skeptics" post is totally inappropriate in a BLP. For whatever credence we give SPS experts in their field, we only do so in the areas they have expertise—certainly not in derisive speculation. RC's expertise is climatology, and they make substantive criticisms of the man's ideas. "Aged skeptics" goes considerably beyond this competence into what we would call personal attacks on wikipedia: derisive inferences from Gray's purported behavior. It may be that Gray is wrong about negative feedback, but we should not cite as authority a blog that says "Especially (in the case of Gray) when your time is occupied being interviewed and screaming at people," and goes on to make conclusory statements about Gray's supposed ignorance and non-theories. Please don't re-add this blog. Cool Hand Luke 22:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's very difficult to make these kinds of judgements, when the BLP policy itself seems to be morphing as we speak - there are active debates on WP:BLP and WP:V regarding BLP sourcing. When I originally raised the BLP issue here, it seemed clear that any blog sources in BLP articles were classified as "remove on sight", but this stance seems to be softening to allow the use of unpublished works in certain scenarios. Personally, I think that's a bad idea, since it creates potential heated debates on every BLP article.
In this case, a little searching produced much better sourcing for the criticism. The critical quotes DHeyward and I added were from a colleague and (former?) friend of Gray's, and it was published in a newspaper article that was largely favorable to Gray. That criticism has a lot more credibility and reliability than unpublished criticism from his political opponents.
IMO, BLP sourcing should be treated like non-free images, which are deleted on sight even if they make the article less good in the short term. This will encourage editors to work harder to find published sources, which should be out there if the subject is sufficiently notable. ATren 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Where do these debates take place? --GoRight 02:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
See WT:V and WT:BLP. Cool Hand Luke 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
A tend to agree with Cool Hand on both the Dessler and RC piece. Dessler is a qualified expert but his short blog entry is more of a critique about the person and some opinions about his knowledge of science with no details. RC's entry is a more detailed critique of Gray's work, not Gray. More stringent requirements associated with BLP I believe are intended to prevent libel. Obviously we should be on the cautious side of that when sourcing but clearly this goes to the extreme, removing reasoned and qualified critique from the article which BLP allows for. The result from the recent edit to this section is the replacement of a fairly detailed qualified scientific critique on Gray's work with a link to an article containing a few critical statements by a climate scientist. Not that this is a bad source, but removing RC's critique makes no sense since it's a valid source in this instance and a good contribution to this article. Gmb92 04:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the Dessler quote is even more problematic. It's about equal to a forum post, as it's simply a reply in a comment box to someone else's post. Such informal, self-published, and unverifiable venues should never be used to criticize someone in a biography of a living person, regardless of its author. ~ UBeR 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the Dessler quote, but I think we should all consider DHeyward's suggestion below, to vastly trim the GW-related sections. That would make much of this discussion moot. ATren 14:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I didn't notice the Dessler quote before. Cool Hand Luke 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

World government charge

Some valid references please. --GoRight 02:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's coming from the Washington Post article. I can't really tell if he's being sarcastic or not. ~ UBeR 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The relevant text from the WaPo piece is:
"Gray has his own conspiracy theory. He has made a list of 15 reasons for the global warming hysteria. The list includes the need to come up with an enemy after the end of the Cold War, and the desire among scientists, government leaders and environmentalists to find a political cause that would enable them to 'organize, propagandize, force conformity and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world!'"
Is that quote on the end supposed to be a quote from Gray? If so the maybe there is a case here, but I am not clear on whether that is meant as an actual quote from Gray. If not I could care less what the author's personal opinion is of Gray. The fair thing to do in the latter case is either remove the charge or, if people insist, make it clear that this is one person's interpretation of Gray's position and not necessarily his actual position.
--GoRight 04:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I assume those are Dr. Gray's words. ~ UBeR 05:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Undue Weight

Global warming is only a very small and recent part of his life. For a biography, so much focus both on his GW views and criticism is undue weight. I propose two or three sentences each for his stance and criticism and merging the two sections. This article needs a lot more on his life as a scientist and expert on tropical cyclones. --DHeyward 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

“ Gray is skeptical of current theories of anthropogenic global warming. He believes that recent global warming is part of a natural cycle involving ocean current, salinity and evaporation. He has been criticised by other scientists for his harsh personal criticism of scientists that subscribe and promote the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. Gray has also been criticised by scientists on his global warming theories as they lack peer review and scientific rigor. ”

--DHeyward 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the GW portion is out proportion of what a properly weighted biography would include. Definitely should expand on his role as a hurricane forecaster and his achievements in the field. ~ UBeR 04:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
If this is a concern, I think instead of removing material, we should focus on providing more material for the other areas. Perhaps the global warming piece could be another article, although the article's size doesn't warrant that.Gmb92 04:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think DHeyward is dead on here. There are concerns from both sides of this debate about the reliability of sourcing with respect to much of the GW-related material. To me this indicates that his GW work is probably not notable enough for such a long section, and it should be pruned way down. This would resolve the issue of unreliable criticism as well: if there are no GW claims from Gray, there is no need to refute them in detail. DHeyward's text above can be sourced directly to the Denver newspaper article. If nobody objects, I'm going to make this change later today. ATren 14:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In terms of scientific career, GW is a negligible part of Grays work - well, zero in fact, since as far as can be told he has never published on it or done any research. But in terms of public note, it is probably 75% or more of him. Very few people had heard of him before he ventured into GW. So wimping out of the problem by stripping it down is a poor solution William M. Connolley 14:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not "wimping out". Gray has not published on GW, so his views on the matter are not reliable, just like the unpublished criticisms are not reliable. What is reliable is that he's gained some notoriety on GW, and that others have criticised him for it. That's all that needs to be said. ATren 15:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree on the undue weight. Gray was well-known in the U.S. popular press for his seasonal hurricane forecasts long before the GW stuff blew up. His forecasts have made the front section of the papers every year for a decade or so. Even now I think he probably is more associated with hurricane forecasting, at least in the U.S. You almost never get hurricanes in Europe, so perhaps his hurricane forecasts didn't make the nightly news. Raymond Arritt 16:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, RA, I stand corrected on that. In Europe, he was completely unknown before GW. Gray has not published on GW, so his views on the matter are not reliable - in a scientific sense, I agree - his views are thoroughly unreliable. But they are his views, and there a good sources attributing them to him, so there is no excuse for not reporting them, and no use claiming they are of no interest William M. Connolley 16:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, absolutely they need to be reported; but right now the global warming business is 3/4 of the article, which is out of proportion. Maybe it could be trimmed back a bit but more to the point, we need more material on his hurricane research and forecasts. Maybe I'll add some. Raymond Arritt 17:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
That would be excellent. I agree that the GW could be trimmed, though: just not right down to the bone. We need to know what he says, rather than just that he disagrees, and we should know what people have responded with William M. Connolley 17:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I proposed replacing it with:

“ Gray is skeptical of current theories of anthropogenic global warming. He believes that recent global warming is part of a natural cycle involving ocean current, salinity and evaporation. He has been criticised for his harsh personal criticism of scientists that subscribe and promote the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. Gray has also been criticised by scientists on his global warming theories as they lack peer review and scientific rigor. ”

Comment? --DHeyward 17:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you want, to repeat everything above? Yes I saw it. Yes it cuts too much out. I've already said that. If you want some more, then it get things in the wrong order: the main crit is that his theories are junk; the personal stuff is secondary William M. Connolley 18:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay.
“ Gray is skeptical of current theories of anthropogenic global warming. He believes that recent global warming is part of a natural cycle involving ocean current, salinity and evaporation. Gray has been criticised by scientists on his global warming theories as they lack peer review and scientific rigor. He has also been criticised for his harsh personal criticism of scientists that subscribe to and promote the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. ”

Can you propose what you think should be kept that's not covered above? --DHeyward 18:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[2] William M. Connolley 22:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
A single blogs opinion and the opinion on another blog by a single professor epitmozies undue weight. Can you condense that down to an idea or sentence? Besides being a violation of WP:RS, the criticism is so narrow and lengthy that it violates undue weight. I don;t see how that criticsm isn't covered by "Gray has been criticised by scientists on his global warming theories as they lack peer review and scientific rigor." Considering that he hasn't published these theories, I see both the claim and the criticism to be more heat than light. I find the broad criticism to be compelling, but individual anecdotal criticism about specific pet theories epitomizes undue weight. --DHeyward 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You honestly think quoting the blog post "Aged skeptic" conforms with BLP and UNDUE? Cool Hand Luke 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
RC is accepted as an RS. You simply repeat the mantra that it isn't ad nauseam. Please don't complain about undue weight - I'm not proposing that be the only text. You asked what was missing. I told you some that was. Your texxt lacks any real info. And no, I'm not proposing we insert "Aged septic" into the article William M. Connolley 23:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Your diff does reinsert "Aged skeptic," and I could only assume that you wanted that version reinstated. I think it would be helpful if you made a clear proposal about what, exactly, should be included. You find DHeyard's version deficient, but your answers aren't clear. I take it some of the RC criticism should be included. How would you write it? Would it be enough it include the RC line from the diff provided (but not, I presume, the "Aged skeptics" line)? Cool Hand Luke 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I still oppose both Aged skeptic and RC as sources for a BLP. ATren 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not proposing to insert the *text* "Aged skeptic"; my diff doesn't. There is too much whitewashing going on under guise of BLP. Criticising the science is not the same as criticising the person William M. Connolley 23:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
But the diff uses direct quotes from the "Aged skeptic," which certainly criticizes the person, and scarcely the science. Are you proposing we cite it or not? Cool Hand Luke 23:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I assumed you were complaining about inserting the *words* aged skeptic. OK, you're just using it as a label. But "Gray has no scientific theory of his own *why* the water vapor feedback is negative, and no data to support his non-theory. He has no manuscript describing his non-theory and no plans to attempt to publish it." does not criticise Gray the person but Grays science, or lack thereof William M. Connolley 23:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Really? I don't think this is the sort of analysis that slips past BLP. After non-scientific claims about Gray's supposed preoccupation with being interviewed and "screaming at people" (mentioned above), the analysis goes as follows: "After arguing with him for a few minutes, it became clear that Bill Gray has no scientific theory of his own..." This is a conclusion he drew from less-than-Socratic dialog: "After I pointed out all of the evidence supporting a positive feedback, he looked confused and finally said, 'OK, maybe the feedback isn't negative, maybe it's neutral. I'll give you that.' I quickly concluded that he has no idea what he's talking about. I wish everyone that considers him credible could have witnessed this exchange."
Basically, this means "I talked to Gray once, and he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about." It doesn't rely upon Gray's reported views (as RC does), but upon an exchange being transmitted to us by the derisive commentator himself. This kind of hearsay might be usable under BLP if independent sources reported upon it, but from SPS it's garbage. Dessler might be an expert scientist, but he's not a reporter, not a magistrate, and not a reliable self-published source for the mental states of William Gray. This is not even a close call. Cool Hand Luke 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. The simple test is to turn it around. We certainly wouldn't use Gray's opinion about climate scientists and their theories to be prominent parts of their biography and rightly so. Gray has a long and impressive career as a researcher into tropical storms. Nevertheless, his specific opinions about the merits of specific hypothesis and the scientists that hold those opinions are not relevant to their biography. Broad criticism in journals that are objective or peer reviewed, yes. Specific criticism by groups and organizations that notably disagree with him without peer review or objectivity is problematic as there is the appearance of authority that is not really supported. --DHeyward 01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The science was criticised with my version. Just in a very short and direct way that is broad and encompasses more than the opinions of a select few. Real Climate might be significant to you but it doesn't have the gravitas as a general resource for information on William Gray. Rather it is one of many. It is undue weight to single them out selectively for comment in the criticism section as it is for Dessler. Also, neither of those blogs are peer reviewed either so I am not sure the criticism of the science is particularly valid. Gray is also an expert in his field and a reliable source. The fact that many disagree with him is notable. The fact that a specific person or small group disagrees on very specific points has to be taken into the whole as to whether their specific viewpoint is particularly relevant to include in his biography. I don't think any specific anecdotal quotes are needed, but in order of importance I would put Webster first as he has co-authored with Gray and has history that is relevant to Gray's bio. Next would be RC but I am concerned that there is no "author". And last would be Dessler. I really see no point though in including any of them. --DHeyward 01:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this 100%. ATren 04:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
We are going round in the same old circles. Gray is an expert in his field but his field isn't GW. RC is a reliable source. We certainly wouldn't use Gray's opinion about climate scientists and their theories to be prominent parts of their biography and rightly so: (a) you're still muddling up the comments on the science with the (not present) comments on the people (b) Gray has no expertise on GW so no, you wouldn't use him. You might well use him on hurricanes, if the climate folk talked about those. Similarly, if Gray goes off about GW then you use climate folk about that subject William M. Connolley 11:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. RC is not a reliable source on William Gray. I have no problem with RC in the external links to refute the science. But quoting them in the article is undue weight and gives the appearance that they are an expert in Grays work. They aren't. As for the "not present" comments on the people, the RC article would not be accepted for scientific journals, not because of it's science but because of it's ad hominem commentary. The RC article belongs more in a political piece, than a scientific article. HEre's unacceptable personal language.
  • "Gray and muddy thinking" - ad hominem on his name.
  • "there is far more wrong with the paper than we have the patience to detail." - I didn't realize lack of patience is equated with scientific rigor.
  • "Again, Gray simply doesn't seem to understand energy conservation." Absurd rhetoric that could be used for/against any proponent of any theory that is contested.
  • "Gray also made a mess of an attempt to analyze ... " - hmmm. I've never read a scientific paper that use language like htat to describe a fellow scientist.
  • "The problem is Gray's failure to adapt to a modern era of meteorology, which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying. " Again a huge presumption on the part of RC that he failed to adapt and a comment on the person and a not very scientific conclusion. If this paper was about science, why is it speculating about invitations? The article is clearly undue weight to be quoted. It's also unreliable to be quoted in his biography. Keep it as an external link. --DHeyward 18:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

RC is not a reliable source on William Gray - congratulations on going round the same incorrect circle yet again. RC isn't being quoted on Gray, but on Grays "science". gives the appearance that they are an expert in Grays work - you're confused again. RC are commenting on Grays GW stuff, not his work William M. Connolley 18:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is his biography, not an article on his work on global warming. RC is not an expert on Gray, therefore quote by RC is a huge "undue weight" problem. They shouldn't be quoted at all in this article. The personal animosity is just another factor in that decision. RC is one of many that disagree with Gray. Singling this lone article that has lot's of non-science injected into it is problematic in a BLP. If you wish to explore the depth of Gray's theory that global warming is not a significant problem, please create an additional article. Otherwise, his global warming position is a very small part of his career and probably not the only one that was disputed by other scientists. --DHeyward 19:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes more excuse-making. Like it or not, Gray is known for his wurbling about GW. You can't sensibly say that without saying what he said. You can't sensibly do that without putting in responses. None of that deserves a seperate article, there is plenty of space for it here. If you care to find someone else other than RC to disagree with Gray, thats fine, but please add that, rather than simply removing RC William M. Connolley 20:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Um, Peter Webster? Look at the article. RC was removed, and a published quote from Webster was added. A very critical quote, and from a colleague of Gray's. Nobody has suggested "simply removing RC," at least not since more reliably sourced criticism was found and added. ATren 00:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
we can sensibly say that without quoting RC. RC isn't particularly more notable than anyone else. They are not more notable than any other blog with respect to William Gray. Summarize what RC and others say into a short few sentences in line with his biography. --DHeyward 20:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
"RC isn't particularly more notable than anyone else." Come on. Show me another website with more climatology PhD contributors. You might think that has no bearing on Gray's views as to climatology, or on how the climatology community perceives Gray's views, but that's not a persuasive argument. Brian A Schmidt 20:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Notability of RC is a separate issue. To me, the primary issues are that (1) RC is a blog that is critical of Gray and his views, and (2) Gray's scientific views on GW are unpublished, therefore inappropriate. So details of his views and RC's response are both inappropriate. And if we were to keep only one, then it would be Gray's, because BLP specifically allows an exception for SPS on the person's own article. To me, that's not an acceptable solution, so both sides should go. There are plenty of places to debate Gray's views - RC, for example - but it doesn't belong here. If and when Gray publishes his theories in a peer-reviewed publication, then we can revisit this. ATren 00:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Although many of Gray's views might be inappropriate, this article is about him, so we shouldn't hide what he said. Certainly, some see him as an authority on the topic. It follows that we should include qualified criticism. The RC one does so in more scientific detail than anything proposed thus far and therefore I think it enhances the quality of this article. By WP:SPS standards, RC certainly qualifies as a WP:RS. Since we're concerned about too much global warming weighted in this article, my proposal would be to trim the RC description of the critique down to some degree.Gmb92 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
OFF TOPIC: Certainly, some see him as an authority on the topic. It follows that we should include qualified criticism. If you feel that he should be criticized because he is an authority here, does it not follow that his criticisms of others should likewise be allowed elsewhere such as on the AIT page? --GoRight 05:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand. My view is that some mistakingly see him as a high authority on the topic. Some also think Steven Milloy or Michael Crichton are authorities on the issue. It doesn't mean we should include their views in a WP article simply because they have a degree of popularity. Now Gray obviously has credentials in a related area of science but a better source than Gray on these other pages you're seeking to include his opinion on would be someone who has published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic of global climate change. Gmb92 06:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Correct me if I am wrong here, but you seem to be arguing both sides of his "mistaken authority status" as you call it. On the one hand you would have this status be a justification for heaping criticism upon him, but on the other hand you would have this status also be a justification for preventing him from responding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoRight (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
"On the one hand you would have this status be a justification for heaping criticism upon him" Critical assessments would be justified no matter what his status. He should be allowed to respond to critical assessments of his work, as in an article about him. Whether or not he can be considered a WP:RS for other articles is a different question entirely. It would be similar to asking a Geriatric specialist questions about your child's health. Better than your average person certainly but why not consult a Pediatrician, particularly one that has published extensive research on children's health? Gmb92 16:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the context and maybe I wasn't clear so I will summarize. It had nothing to do with the absolute credibility of RC and it wasn't questioned and for that matter neither is Gray's credibility. Within this article, Peter Webster from Georgia Tech (not RC) and former co-author with Gray has been critical of Gray on his Global Warming positions in a reliably sourced newspaper. Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M (not RC) has been critical of Gray for his Global Warming position in his blog. An anonymous editor(s) at RC has been critical of Gray for his Global Warming positions on their blog. All of those critics have valid points and scientifically they all have excellent credentials as does Gray. For proper weight, these criticism should be summed as simply the collective, mainstream view. William Connelly, a founder/contributor to the RC blog is insisting, however, that the anonymous criticism from his blog be quoted and attributed separately within the article. I simply don't see how that is compatible with BLP and the other policies and guidelines that shape articles. --DHeyward 02:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that there is no consensus for this, so let's move on. Other than weight, I don't have any major concerns with the current version. ATren 14:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)