Talk:William M. Gray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
The following comments have been left for this page: Too much attention is paid to his stance in global warming, and not enough on the rest of his life. It also needs considerable referencing, and a good copyedit for style. Titoxd(?!?) 04:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (edit)

	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]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Too much attention is paid to his stance in global warming, and not enough on the rest of his life. It also needs considerable referencing, and a good copyedit for style. Titoxd(?!?) 04:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (edit)

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

[edit] RealClimate

I want to move a couple of threads which are focused on RealClimate to a common section to have a focused discussion here. I have posted a comment on the BLP page where they are discussing these very points and pointed them to this section. Please feel free to comment here but please don't remove the section.

Topic 1: Relevance of RC as being an "established expert on the topic of the article"

The topic of this article is William Gray. RC is comprised of experts on GW and seek to include self-published criticisms of Gray's statements on GW. Does RC qualify for this exception?

See the personal exchange section for examples of the real world dynamics of the discussion.

Topic 2: "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"

The RC contributors have clearly published works in the area of GW in reliable third-party publications. To my knowledge they have not publish anything on William Gray in reliable third-party publications. Do RC's unrelated (to William Gray) publications on GW meet the standard intended by this phrasing, or does the work published in the third party sources have to be have to be substantially the same as is being referenced in their WP:SPS?

See the personal exchange section for examples of the real world dynamics of the discussion.

Topic 3: With respect to the RealClimate reference, is it just me or does anyone else object to the fact that the article in question is anonymous? We have no idea who actually wrote the piece in question. I can accept the credentials of the primary contributors as individuals but the credentials of some anonymous author? If they want to be taken seriously they should at least sign their names to the piece. --GoRight 06:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Group RC posts are the work of all. Of course William M. Connolley 14:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And if the membership should change how does some future reader know who was actually being referenced here? --GoRight 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Topic 4: Is RealClimate a legitimate legal entity? In other words is it incorporated somehow? The question is relevant here because one of the primary concerns in WP:BLP is avoiding libel suits to Wikipedia.

If some news organization, say the New York Times, anonymously publishes an editorial criticizing someone and that person considers the editorial to be libelous who do they sue? The New York Times, of course, because the NYT is a legitimate legal entity and can be sued. And being a legitimate legal entity which can be sued they in some sense indemnify Wikipedia if there is a reference to that anonymous editorial here.

I am not claiming anything related to the discussion above is libelous, but theoretically what would happen if Wikipedia referenced an anonymous article on RealClimate (or any other unincorporated source) and someone actually wanted to sue for libel? Who do you sue? All of the RealClimate's current contributors at the time of the suit? The ones present at the time the article was written (assuming that can be determined)? And to what level is RealClimate indemnifying Wikipedia against such suits?

Is this something that Wikipedia should be concerned with?

--GoRight 14:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So your argument is that we shouldn't reference RC because it would be difficult for Gray to sue them? That seems more than a bit convoluted. Raymond Arritt 14:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is (or rahter would be, had it any merit) a generic BLP issue. Take it there William M. Connolley 14:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia likely has the same forum exception to libel suits as other forum providers, like AOL chat rooms. WP is more of a gray area in certain respects, though. As for RC, unincorporated organizations sue and get sued all the time. It's not some huge mystery, especially when there are identified members who can be sued. This is all ridiculous anyway, though, since nothing RC has said about Gray is libelous. I'm wasting pixels here, - as William said, this discussion belongs elsewhere. Brian A Schmidt 15:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I am. But I wish to refer to this page as a real life example. But you never answered my question, is RC a valid legal entity? --GoRight 14:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Red herrings don't smell so great. Raymond Arritt 15:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't think anything discussed above by RC is libelous. I just think that RC is a bit of a special case that the BLP policy should address and since they are already discussing these exact issues I took the opportunity to put some thoughts together and to bring them into the policy discussion.

As I said on WC's talk page, my goal here is to have a policy that addresses their unique circumstances so that we can avoid these silly disagreements on every single page. I'll abide by the policy as long as it is clear. The current one isn't as evidenced by our discussions here and those going on in the BLP discussion page. --GoRight 16:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

GoRight - You are absolutely correct as far as "anonymous articles" goes - they can not possibly be considered RS under any circumstances whatsoever, particularly when they are posted to a highly polarized advocacy blog. Not only is their no peer review, there is no author. There must be an author--or it is just "hearsay" or "rumor"--and anonymous articles, which can not be laid at the doorstep of some individual(s) should never be quoted, anywhere. If the people at RC, for example, wish their material to be taken seriously, then they should append their name/names to their statements. Then we, the readers, might know "who says so?". Who would take a paper seriously, even if published in a major journal, if it had no acknowledged authors? (of course, the journal would never publish it in the first place without the authors names...but that's my point.) So, to summarize, the use of the referenced RC blog page violates RS (blogs are not RS) and "?" -- there must be a Wiki policy that says you can't quote anonymous persons!

KipHansen (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William M. Connolley et al

I was surprised to see that William M. Connolley, aka Mr. "I consider him a reliable source", [see 'My Discussion with Mr. Connolley' on this discussion page above], is still attempting to hijack this BLP page to fight his personal battle against anyone that dare disagree with his personal position on AGW (aka Global Warming or Climate Change).

I agree with the level-headed administrators who point out that this BLP page is weighted way way to heavily on Dr. Gray's opinions on climate change and too lightly on his reason for being in the encyclopedia in the first place--his standing as [one of] the world's leading hurricane prediction expert[s].

Connolley's continuing efforts to malign people who disagree with him (or his intellectual/scientific camp), by injecting negative opinions about them or their work, in their BLP pages is misguided and violates basic WP policy. Global Warming or Climate Change issues that their own extensive entries where these issues can be presented or discussed.

I believe that Mr. Connolley knows perfectly well that this is inappropriate, but continues to carry on his campaign against his intellectual rivals on this issue--on this and other BLP of scientists that have differing views on climate change.

I would suggest to the larger body of Wiki administrators to investigate whether this is an ongoing intentional violation by Mr. Connolley. If it is, Wiki policy for handling offenders should be enforced.

KipHansen 00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The editor seems to be respecting the consensus on this page, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up weeks later. If this is a continuing problem, you should find current examples of it and take it to the appropriate forum. Article talk pages are not the correct place for user disputes. Cool Hand Luke 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Kip, searching for your Wikipedia edits seems to show a political position - there's nothing wrong with that, so long as the edits are accurate, which is the case for Connolley. And for someone who's claimed repeatedly to fear libel suits against wikipedia, these gratuitous and false insults you've made against him seem somewhat contradictory. Are you really so concerned for the greater benefit of wikipedia, or are you just driving your viewpoint?Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool - thank you for weighing in on this. I apologize for jumping in on this "after the fact" but I find it frustrating that so many people have to waste so much time on such silly issues. BLP pages are NOT the correct forum for advocating one's personal opinions on Hot Topic Controversy issues such as Global Warming, and active antagonists in the controversy should not be editing the BLP pages of other persons involved in the controversy .... almost all of the above (entire talk page) is the result of this type of thing.

Brian - I'm sure Mr. Connolley can defend himself.

BLP - What belongs in this BLP are Dr. Gray's opinions - clearly and fairly stated and referenced to RSs. Other people's opinions about Dr. Gray's opinions belong on their BLP pages or in the Wiki article on that controversy. It should be enough to say that Dr. Gray's opinions about Global Warming (linked to article)differ significantly from those contained in recent IPCC reports (linked).

Peter Webster section - Personally, I feel the whole Peter Webster section is inappropriate in a BLP. It is easy to find someone who has said critical things about anyone. That doesn't mean that they are significant enough to include in the persons BLP.

KipHansen (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not always agreed with William H. Connolley, but after a brief (somewhat heated) debate, he respected consensus. That's the way it's supposed to work, isn't it? As for the Webster quotes, they're well sourced and not defamatory, and they come from a respected source (one of his colleagues, in fact). As long as we have a long section on his GW views, there's no reason why we can't have a well-sourced criticism of those views. As for whether that long section on his GW views should be shortened - well, that's been another point of contention (see above). ATren (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

ATren - Yes - I had a similar debate with Connolley earlier as well. I will only point out that one shouldn't have to fight the same fight over and over with the same editor/admin when the issue is clear Wiki Policy.

I do firmly believe that Wiki policy will have to change or be clarified on BLP - the idea that Connelly and other vigorous viewpoint advocates (on Connolley, see his personal blog or just his comments above) are allowed to edit the biographies of their intellectual/viewpoint "opponents" strikes me as absurd - how can anyone expect them to be dispassionate and impartial.

The idea that strongly polarized "single viewpoint advocacy blogs" (such as RC or junkscience) can be considered WikiRS is equally absurd - with the exceptions allowed within the rule - such as if Dr. Gray has written a response to something on the blog, then his response could be quoted - if it was possible to verify that he had actually made the post.

Webster section - ATren, if you read the Webster section, you find that he does not actually criticize Dr. Gray's ideas or theories. He claims to have been part of an "anonymous peer review" and then talks about it. Reading the whole newspaper article reveals that Webster "had to recuse myself because of the ad hominem attacks he's been making." In other words, he was miffed at Dr. Gray and felt he couldn't fairly review Dr. Gary's proposals. For which he is to be commended, btw. Others who disagree with or "are miffed at" Dr. Gray should do the same, on this BLP, recuse themselves and leave biographies to others, who haven't any axe to grind.

21:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If those who disagree with Gray must recuse themselves, it stands to reason that those who agree with him must recuse themselves as well. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Raymond - You are absolutely right. Those who are active major antagonists/protagonists on either side of a hot topic--like the Global Warming/Climate Change--should recuse themselves from editing the BLPs of others who are also active major antagonists/protagonists on the same issue. If they want to argue the science or the policy surrounding the issue, they need to do it in the pages of those topics....not in BLPs. KipHansen (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A good idea in principle, but unworkable in practice. All it takes is for one partisan editor to start, whether because they're new and don't know, or are convinced that spreading The Truth^TM is important above all else, and the whole thing breaks down. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Then all is well - Gray is only a bit-player in this, not a major protagonist. Oh dear... who gets to define major/minor? Anyway, this comment is mostly to point out that wiki COI is a bit unbalanced at the moment: those closely associated with the subject (and thus, in general, those in favour) are generally blocked under COI; those opposed aren't. Ideally it would be addressed, but may never be as too difficult William M. Connolley (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley - You might consider your position in this regard. I have checked your BLP, and there is no evidence that Dr. Gray has been editing it.

I'm sure that the aged skeptic's silly ideas could not possibly represent a threat to your position--so I find it curious that you spend so much of your time and effort (witness your many entries on this page) fooling around with this bit-player's BLP. Perhaps you should recuse yourself, if even only on the basis that bit-players don't deserve your lofty attentions. KipHansen (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's out of line; WMC has every much right to edit the article as you or anyone else. You're skirting dangerously close to WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

---shift indent to left ----

Raymond - thank you for your comments. You will have to forgive my flip reply to Mr. Connolley's flip reply.

You are absolutely correct - Mr. Connolley has the right to edit this page under WP "anyone can edit". With that right comes responsibilities to forward the purposes of Wikipedia and abide by its policies and rules. One of these policies, which is the topic of this Talk Page thread, is WP:COI. That is the policy dealing with Conflicts Of Interest. Another is WP:OR, which forbids editors from putting in materials from their own original research.

In this case, Mr. Connolley, who is a vigorous proponent of one side of the Global Warming controversy is editing the BLP of a scientist who is on the opposite side of the same controversy. The question, properly raised by Mr. Connolley himself is: does this represent a COI?

Mr. Connolley - In threads above, you insist that the blog RealClimate be accepted by others a WP:RS, despite the fact that such polarized blogs are expressly disallowed and despite the fact that many of the articles published (self-published?) there are not attributed to any author (eg: are anonymous). In a previous thread you characterize the "author" of such RC articles (those not signed or attributed) as "Group RC posts are the work of all." In your discussion, you fail to disclose that you are a contributing editor to RC - according to your BLP page [1] - and are thus could be assigning RS status to your own Original Research and defending links to it. I hate to say it so bluntly, but this looks like a COI to me, even setting aside the OR issue.

Let me remind all reading this thread that WP:RS is VERY explicit on the issue of the use of "partisan blogs"

"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject."

Note that here "the subject" would refer to Dr. Bill Gray.

In this case we have a clearly partisan website and partisan blog, being labeled WP:RS by one of its own editors. [see WP:OR]

I am well aware that you are a professional in the field of ice study and computer modeling, and where you wish to give Wikipedia the benefit of your knowledge and experience, in those fields, and on pages related to those fields, I applaud you for your willingness to help.

In my opinion, you, as a contributing editor to RC, certainly have a COI in regards to the issue of whether or not linking to its contents is allowed here. You may have a COI in general concerning the BLP pages of your ideological opponents - if you are unable to maintain an unbiased and objective viewpoint (NPOV). For example, if your reason for editing this BLP page is simply to attempt to discredit Dr. Gray's theories about Global Warming--as opposed to creating a well-rounded biography of Dr. Gray. KipHansen (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you please stop using this talk page for your personal attacks on another editor and as a soapbox? If you have any gripes that are real as opposed to felt - then take it up on the appropriate forums - not here.

If you have reliable sources to provide some insight into what Gray's "theories" are on global warming - then add them.

If you have trouble with realclimate under the terms of WP:RS,WP:SPS or WP:BLP - then take it up on the appropriate forums for this. Or alternatively present a case here - but drop the attacks and accusations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Kim - Thank you for joining this conversation between Mr. Connolley and myself.

I've made my point with Mr. Connolley and expressed myself clearly on the issue of using partisan websites or blogs as WP:RS and again raised the point (originally raised above by GoRight) as to whether or not anonymous posts and articles, anywhere, can be considered RS. I await his reply.

Eventually, other more experienced admins will take this up and settle it, as they have in the past, on this and other pages. In the end, WikiPolicy will win out.

KipHansen (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] undue weight

May be a fair comment. I only know about Gray for his GW position, and thats all he is known for in, say, Europe. But indeed his carerr has been on hurricane forecasting. A partial solution would be to expand that rather thin section. Cutting out some of the GW is possible, too, if done in a balanced way William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we agreed on here. It's been half a year, and no progress: The story of Wikipedia. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Then we are not so much talking about a content dispute/NPOV - but a "lack of editors" or a lazy editors problem? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the article still remains unbalanced. Whatever the cause is irrelevant. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've cut it down a bit. Someone else can have a go too if they like William M. Connolley (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)