Talk:Garth Paltridge/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

More original research / guilt by association problems

I have reverted some more BLP issues that Ratel has added whilst the third BLP/N is still open here.

The new problems are that (1) the source says nothing about "frequent" speeches. (2) this in no way establishes that Paltridge is "affiliated" with the Lavoisier Group. (3) It is WP:SYNTHESIS to be using the fact that Hugh Morgan is the Lavoisier Group president as evidence of Paltridge's alleged "affiliation" with that group. Finally, the whole thing is just irrelevant to Paltridge's biography and shouldn't be included. There is a single line in a reliable source that establishes nothing more than that "these Australian skeptics tend to hang out together" which is hardly surprising. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, GP is affiliated with Lavoisier, although the only sources for that are blogs at the moment. As for your contention that Morgan did not launch GP's book in his capacity as President of Lavoisier, I suggest you read his launch speech. which contains numerous references to the Group. And please remember that GP's famous claim about CSIRO threats was first published by the Lavoisier Group. In fact, that should go into the page. ► RATEL ◄ 00:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: The Lavoisier Group recently sent an email inviting all members, friends and supporters to a combined book launch and dinner for Garth Paltridge’s new book, Climate Capers. [1] ► RATEL ◄ 00:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

More incontrovertible evidence of a link is here:

Hugh Morgan, in Melbourne on Tuesday, launches a new book, The Climate Caper:

IT'S a privilege to be asked to launch this important book. My mind goes back to the launching of Bill Kininmonth's book Climate Change: A Natural Hazard in 2004 by John Zillman. That launch (Ratel's comment: also organized by Lavoisier) was written up in The Age by Melissa Fyfe, then The Age's environmental reporter. Although she was actually in attendance, her report suggested otherwise. More recently we had Ian Plimer's launch at the Windsor, with more than 300 people in attendance. The Age did not report on that event. In Perth, Dennis Jensen launched David Archibald's Solar Cycle 24 (Ratel's comment: also organized by Lavoisier). That well-attended event did get a brief run in the Perth media. Now we have The Climate Caper and I'll lay odds on that The Age will not report on this event

Hard to argue with that. Clearly, the whole thing is paid for and organized by Paltridge's colleagues at the Lavoisier Grp. I'm still looking for confirmation that the entire book, including publication costs, was covered by Morgan and his group. ► RATEL ◄ 01:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, in all sincerity it appears to me that you genuinely do not understand what WP:SYNTHESIS is. I am not arguing with you about whether or not Morgan is the President of the LG. The point is, you are not allowed to include that fact in Wikipedia unless a reliable source makes the same point, in the same context, in the same way. Sure, you can prove Morgan is the President of the LG. Sure, you can also prove that Morgan launched P's book. What is not clear is whether he was launching the book in his capacity as President of the LG, or in his capacity as a friend of Paltridge. Therefore, what you have presented in the text here is synthesis, original research, and yet another BLP violation. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So either he's a pal of Paltridge's, just doing him a favour by launching the book, or he's doing this in his capacity as head of the Lavoisier Group, which paid for the launch, sent emails inviting people to the launch, etc. Clearly it's the latter, and it's no BLP transgression to call him what he is, the President of the Group (launching yet another book in a long line of similar launches). Your constant points of order on minor quibbles like this is just more proof of your tendentious editing. ► RATEL ◄ 04:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of being called tendentious, I agree with Alex on WP:SYN in this case, as I have in many of these so called "quibbles". Ratel, why not discuss alternate wording here? ATren (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with ATren, here. Calling it WP:SYN isn't saying it's wrong, just that the sources don't explicitly support it, and that it takes some ... well ... "synthesis" to get there. I also have a problem with calling the voicing of such concerns "tendentious." UnitAnode 06:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My concerns go further than the mere synthesis problem.

At the risk of being called worse things even than "tendentious", it seems to me that we have a single sentence from a single reliable source trying to link Paltridge with the Lavoisier Group; let me reproduce that sentence here:

Lavoisier Group conferences feature all of the usual sceptics including Ian Plimer, Bob Forster, Garth Paltridge and Ian Castles.

That's it. Note, the journalist who wrote this provides no evidence, and the journalist is clearly biased against scientists who express skepticism. So I don't think this qualifies as a high quality source, although certainly it would pass the minimal requirements for WP:RS. Anyhow, that is apparently the only sentence in existence in reliable sources that attempts to make an association between Paltridge & the Lavoisier Group. So again, the question is not whether Paltridge is really a member or a friend of the Lavoisier Group (he obviously has some connection there); the question is about does anyone out there -- presently -- care? If the answer is "no", no one other than blog posters cares (after all, even this journalist is making very little out of Paltridge in the book), then WP:WEIGHT insists that Wikipedia is not used here to cause and encourage people to start caring about this connection. According to the Wikipedia Lavoisier Group group article, it is a disinformation organisation, spreading denial in bad faith. Thus, we must insist on the highest quality connections and cross all of our BLP bases before the material may be included at all. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I stand by my edit. The WP:GANG approach against me by editors who lean to one side of the debate and wish to remove valid info won't work. Here's the info we have from RSes:

1. LG launched GP's book (as it has done for numerous similar books, including Plimer's)
2. President of LG gave launch speech
3. GP's most sensational claim (CSIRO threats) were made in a LG publication insert see below, this is apparently just untrue... Alex Harvey (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
4. GP gives speeches at LG conferences.

Now, tendentious editing would consist of trying to wikilawyer that out of the article. I realize you are working yourselves up into a frenzy with the ETS issue so prominent in Australia right now, but running to BLP/N every 5 mins is not the way to do this. ► RATEL ◄ 08:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to respond to the relevant points with references to actual Wikipedia guidelines or are you just going to assert that anyone who disagrees is a Denialist and wrong? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Consider this a formal warning, Ratel. Your post on my talkpage regarding this matter was wildly inappropriate, and any further such bad-faith accusations could result in your being blocked for personal attacks. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a "POV editor" as you called me on my page. UnitAnode 14:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have again removed this section as no one has so far attempted to give any justification for it. It appears that there is no evidence that Paltridge is a member of the Lavoisier Group; it is unclear as to what "affiliated" with the group is supposed to mean. There is a single source saying that he has "spoken at" Lavoisier Group conferences, but no detail whatever, in a context where the author was discussing the Lavoisier Group and Paltridge is mentioned only in passing. The same author (I have this book) mentions Paltridge only twice, and doesn't seem to have a strong opinion about Paltridge himself. Finally, the author gives no evidence, suggesting that he is merely repeating folklore or things he's learnt by personal experience. So it is still quite possible that Paltridge's only connection with the Lavoisier Group is at the level of friendship or aquaintance with its members and that he's merely been invited to speak there. Nothing here, as far as I can see it, is meaty enough to warrant linking Paltridge's biography page to what is claimed in Wikipedia to be a disinformation group and making thereby a "guilt by association" slur. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley has restored it again in this edit. The consensus seems to be that everyone other than Ratel agreed that this was WP:SYN. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the text as I regard this as a serious BLP violation. I remind William Connolley of the following section from WP:BLP, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." Paltridge was said in this article to be "affiliated" with the Lavoisier Group and yet there is absolutely no evidence that he is (no one has even tried to provide evidence of affiliation; it seems that for some having spoken at Lavoisier conferences somehow implies affiliation; whereas it doesn't imply anything beyond having accepted an invitation to give a speech). This is a more serious problem that the synthesis problem which is also serious. Finally, there is the question of weight. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying very very hard to see what the BLP concern is here.. As far as i can see all of the sources are reliable (for what they are used for), and every sentence is sourced. I can for the life of me not see what may be potentially smearing, libellous or otherwise problematic with regards to this information and Paltridge. If the Lavoisier group launched the book (as the Lavoirsier group itself says) then what is the problem with writing it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you're trying so hard to see the problem here and yet still failing to then I guess I'll have to help you out. Firstly, you would note that ATren (talk · contribs) and Unitanode (talk · contribs) already agreed with the problematic WP:SYNTHESIS that is being restored. Synthesis is WP:OR and is very explicitly never ever allowed into a WP:BLP (or indeed into any article). Why have you not responded to or even mentioned the pre-existing consensus we had here that there is synthesis then (you say after all that you are trying very hard)? Secondly, I assume you understand the meaning of the word "affiliated"; can you say then which source (please direct me to the actual wording) supports the contention that Paltridge is "affiliated" with the Group? Thirdly, on why this is potentially smearing, William Connolley has expressed the view that the Group is not "respectable". Others, e.g. Clive Hamilton, also regard Lavoisier Group as not "respectable". It is therefore a BLP issue to be going beyond the reliable sources in connecting anyone with this group. Note: I have agreed to use talk and use other noticeboards in less serious cases before going to BLP/N. I have not agreed, and certainly don't intend to agree, to stop reminding editors that they need to actually obey the BLP policy. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have started this thread again below. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Paltridge, CSIRO censorship and the Lavoisier publication

Since the previous thread turned into an interesting discussion about my personal morality, I have started the thread anew here. In this edit here I have proposed a new wording that keeps the original material and removes the WP:SYNTHESIS and what appears to be a gratuitous association with the Lavoisier Group, which we all seem to agree has a bad reputation. The Lavoisier Group publication would be relevant to an article about its author, Ray Evans, but it has nothing to do with Paltridge. The new wording that I reverted (and that Arthur Rubin also reverted) still implied or at least suggested (mainly just as a result of unclear wording) that Paltridge somehow had something to do with it. He didn't. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The claim was made via this paper, and this is where it saw the light of day. If you can find another place, prior to 2006, where this claim was publicised, then it should be changed to reflect that. But until such time, the origin for this serious claim needs to made clear. ► RATEL ◄ 02:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You have indeed here a strange argument about the statement originating in a Lavoisier Group publication (given they are obviously merely quoting an earlier source), but even if I go along with this it is still just plainly wrong. Actually look at the dates before making a statement like this. The Miranda Devine source that I had used and that you've reverted was in fact written in March 2006, whereas the Ray Evans/LG publication picked up the quote six months later in November, 2006. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I quote from the Miranda Devine report: "Yet a paper published last week by the Lavoisier Group, Nine Lies about Global Warming, says the real censorship is applied by the scientific establishment to those scientists who express scepticism about the global warming "consensus". A retired climate expert and founder of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre, Garth Paltridge, says he was threatened by the CSIRO with funding cuts in the 1990s if he expressed his doubts about the extent of the effect of greenhouse emissions."

So clearly, she got it from an early version of the Ray Evans paper. Now, I ask you to revert back to my version or supply cogent reasons why I should not revert back. ► RATEL ◄ 03:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, okay and have another look because the one you're linking to is not called "Nine Lies about Global Warming" but in fact "Nine facts about climate change." The paper you are linking to has not even been published in print media and as such is not a reliable source. The author in that paper says the earlier paper that Devine refers to was in fact a "pamphlet" which means it probably wasn't published either. It appears that Evans rewrote it because he wasn't happy with it? As such its (online) publication date is November 2006. The earliest (and only) reliable secondary source is the Devine piece. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the earlier version, and it does not appear at all to be a reliable source. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, sorry, the Devine piece is an op-ed, so that isn't a reliable source either. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I now think out of fairness both to Paltridge and the CSIRO we remove the material entirely until it can be reliably sourced. This discussion has shown that he have an op-ed based on an unpublished Lavoisier Group pamphlet which asserts without evidence that Paltridge has said something about the CSIRO. We don't know what the original context was, so unless someone has the book handy and can supply the context in which Paltridge made the remarks, it all should go. Any objections? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I provisionally agree that it is a far-fetched claim that impugns the CSIRO and we won't miss it on the page. However, I seem to remember that he repeats the charge in his book, and I'll be checking that in a few weeks If it is there I'll eventually end up putting it back it, and I'll include the fact that it first appeared in a Lavoisier Group pamphlet. ► RATEL ◄ 06:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, hold on, he makes the claim afresh here [2]. It has to stay. ► RATEL ◄

Proposed edit:

In a 2006 Lavoisier Group pamphlet entitled Nine Lies about Global Warming, Paltridge is quoted as stating that he was threatened with funding cuts in the 1990s by his employer, the CSIRO, if he publicly expressed his doubts about the extent of the effect of greenhouse emissions. The charge is repeated in his book.

That summarises the situation accurately. ► RATEL ◄ 07:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well... No... It's not accurate because Paltridge is not quoted; the story about the CSIRO is only mentioned in passing and moreover it is presented as hearsay. I am sorry but there is still no excuse for including this Evans/LG reference. You've just found a better source, and you admit that it's a better source. So if your goal is to improve Wikipedia, you must use the better source and base the text on the best source accordingly.

Consider an analogy: Imagine if I went off to the CSIRO page now and added, "In a 2006 Lavoisier Group pamphlet entitled, Nine Lies about Global Warming, the CSIRO is quoted as admitting that the Toronto Target was set politically." What do you think would happen? Can you imagine the squeals of "you denialist POV pusher! keep that unreliable source out of this article or be banned".

Finding a more reliable source doesn't change the fact that the LG publication wouldn't meet reliable source standards and is most unsuitable for a BLP. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making here. Are you saying that the fact that he first published the claim via a LG paper is somehow not RS? Why? How have you determined that papers published by the LG are not RS in this regard, especially as GP has an ongoing involvement with the LG (they launched his book and he appears at their conferences). Please be specific. I think you'll need to take this to the RS noticeboard. ► RATEL ◄ 11:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

We can do that, but the guideline is pretty clear, see WP:RS, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You tell me, honestly, is an internet published Lavoisier Group pamphlet a reliable source? Is the source adding anything that the Pearson source isn't? And you need to stop saying that "Paltridge first published his claim in an LG paper." It's just not true; being cited in an LG paper is not the same as publishing in an LG paper. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the pamphlet, I agree: the claim (funding) is made by the Lavoisier folk, not Paltridge. It should be removed (it was added ages ago by some septic anyway) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, we could add in Over the years, the opinion of that community has been manipulated into more-or-less passive support by a deliberate campaign to isolate—and indeed to denigrate—the scientific sceptics outside the central activity of the IPCC. The audience has been actively conditioned into being receptive. It has thereby become gradually easier to sell the proposition of greenhouse disaster. - that would be fair enough William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support either complete removal (my view is that Wikipedia should not be used to generate any kind of controversy) or inclusion of the funding allegation based on the Pearson source if that is deemed WP:RS. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• But, my fellow editors, we are not here to construct reality. We are a tertiary source. The primary source is the Lavoisier paper. His anecdote is first quoted there. The secondary source is the RS (The Miranda Devine column in The Australian — yes, an opinion column in a major newspaper can be a RS, especially if it's not saying anything controversial, in this case merely parroting the Lavoisier paper's contents). We are the tertiary source. It is not our place to nod and agree amongst ourselves to change the timeline of events in the real world to suit ourselves. This is anathema to an encyclopaedia. I'm amazed that an admin and and ex-admin cannot see this. ► RATEL ◄ 20:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is, do you think that we have actually misunderstood the guidelines with respect to WP:RS? If you do, then quote the section of the guideline you think we have misunderstood. Meanwhile, what I think is that you are proposing above to do WP:OR, and that is never allowed. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OR??? How? The Devine article says it all, the whole edit can be taken from that one RS. And it is a RS for this purpose, since it is not saying anything controversial about the subject, or anything with which the subject would take issue. ► RATEL ◄ 05:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is original research if you insist on directly citing the primary sources in order to "establish the time line". The wording that I have in there at the moment is not, I don't think, original research since I am not directly the citing the primary source.

an opinion column in a major newspaper can be a RS, especially if it's not saying anything controversial, in this case merely parroting the Lavoisier paper's contents. This (as I have already pointed out) is an amazing statement. You are arguing as though the Lavoisier Group was as credible and reliable as Scientific American! And this so-called uncontroversial statement is that the CSIRO threatened behind closed doors to cut Paltridge's funding if he expressed his views on global warming. Can you not see for yourself the irony of all this? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Alex, look mate, it was pointed out to me that the Paltridge page has only had about 300 hits in the last month, probably mostly from you and me. lol. So anyway, I'm therefore not going to waste my time fighting you on this. But I'll end by saying that for the record, on this point you are completely wrong. Why?

1. Because opinion pages in major newspapers are RS.
2. Because the CSIRO claim was made later in Paltridge's book, so the chances that the Devine and LG sources were unreliable on this respect are ipso facto nil.
3. Because the mention of the LG source is within the Devine RS, so we do not even need to cite the LG paper to mention that she says it comes from there.

So you see, you are simply wrong on this from a wikipedia POV, and, more importantly, morally and intellectually wrong to try to sanitise GP's actual real-life involvement with this distasteful group (to say nothing of his now-deleted links to the Institute of Public Affairs, Natural Resources Stewardship Project and APEC), merely because of your own myopic ideological stance. May Jeebus have mercy on you, but your kids may not forgive you. But happy editing! I have better things to do with my life than fight a wikilawyering, truth-twisting POV-pusher over page about a nobody. Cheers, have a nice weekend. ► RATEL ◄ 07:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, thanks for the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I suppose it is at least a good step forward that they seem to have been made more in good humour this time! On your point 1, that's just wrong. On point 2, that's very plausible, and quite possibly correct, but original research. On point 3, have a look at the text and take note that this is exactly very close to what I did to solve the problem. However, in light of the previous discussion I have now changed that reference that pointed to Devine to now point to Pearson instead, although I haven't changed the wording of the text. I see the Pearson as more reliable as he is directly quoting Climate Caper (the crucial point here is that we have an original context in which Paltridge has made these remarks, which was not the case for the anecdote provided by the LG paper). As I said, though, if William Connolley or anyone else wishes to remove this slur against the CSIRO altogether, I have no objection. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Lavoisier and WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:WEIGHT problems

I'll start this thread again here to make the point clearer.

I note that Kim D. Petersen has actually removed the claim that Paltridge is "affiliated" so I can remove that objection.

The remaining problems are two facts completely unsupported by sources and the same synthesis problems from before.

Here is the present article text:

Paltridge is a speaker at conferences organised by the Lavoisier Group,[Hamilton's Scorcher cited] which organised the launch of Paltridge's book on August 11, 2009 in Melbourne.[no source given] Lavoisier Group president[synthesis of source 1] Hugh Morgan launched the book, and Paltridge responded.[synthesis of source 2][no source given that Paltridge responded].

Let's break this down into a number of focused objections:

1. The Hamilton source establishes nothing beyond a merely anecdotal claim that Paltridge has spoken at at least one or possibly more than one Lavoisier Group conference. What this actually means, no one knows. Was he invited? Did he volunteer? Did he join? Did he know/care that the conference was organised by Lavoisier? Was he paid? It certainly doesn't mean that "Paltridge is a speaker at Lavoisier Conferences" (verb is implies an ongoing arrangement which is unsupported). Hamilton is not writing about Paltridge here and appears to know and care little about Paltridge. Because it is unclear exactly what Hamilton does mean with respect to Paltridge and Lavoisier it seems to me that this source is not reliable and can't be used to establish anything interesting.
2. That Lavoisier organised the book launch in Melbourne is not supported by any reliable sources at all. None of the reliable sources say this. It is established by the Liberal Party blog posting however, but the fact remains that reliable sources have not considered it noteworthy, and therefore, neither can Wikipedia.
3. The second sentence is Ratel's pure original research and synthesis, as was already agreed above. One has to look up the Lavoisier website in order to discover that Morgan is the President, and one then has to look up the Quadrant source to see that Morgan launched the book. There is no reliable source that makes this connection.
4. Finally, there is no source given supporting the fact that Paltridge responded. This is hearsay.

Now if someone managed to revise the text to remove all these objections perhaps the original research problems could be resolved. But I believe nothing more or stronger than "According to Clive Hamilton, Paltridge has spoken at at least one and possibly more than one Lavoisier Group conference before" is possible using the current sources.

This would then be a gratuitous guilt by association inclusion of a fact that completely fails WP:WEIGHT. That is, there would be more words here about in Wikipedia than in all reliable sources combined, a very big weight violation indeed.

For all these reasons the text either needs to go completely or reliable sources that actually attempt to make the same points that Ratel/William Connolley/Kim D. Petersen are trying to make as well as establishing the weight need to be found. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, why is there a section called "Launch of the Climate Caper" at all? Even if the book is of interest, surely the exact date time and place of where it was launched is not. That short section should go. Poujeaux (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I have removed the section yet again. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-instated, yet again. P, look at the history, the section title has been re-titled in a (pointless and unwise) attempt to placate AH William M. Connolley (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a "because I say so" argument. Any chance you are going to respond in point to the objections I have made? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have raised this discussion at WP:NPOV/N#Garth_Paltridge. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have requested that this page be protected

Stuff on edit warring

WMC is reverting, with unhelpful edit summaries, and not joining discussions regarding the addition of the short section. I have made one reversion, and I'm not going to be drawn into an edit war, so even if the page is protected in the "Wrong Version", as they say, at least protection will calm the waters a bit to allow discussion to proceed. UA 15:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Well, I'm not exactly protecting the page (yet). Protection should be reserved for vandals who can't be reasoned with. You're all established, reasonable editors; you're all civilized folk. So, how about a suggestion; how about people stop edit warring and resolve this on the talk page? Please, I don't want to have to lock this page or block anyone. Oh, and this isn't an endorsement of the present version. I'm not getting involved in the details unless you guys need active mediation. Master of Puppets 15:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC) The problem is that we have one side who insists on reinserting material without discussion, and with unhelpful edit summaries. This page has been subject to slow-motion edit-warring by established editors for quite some time now. I regret your decision not to protect it for at least a short period (say, 48 hours) to force discussion to happen around the issues here. UA 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Like you said, it's a slow-moving war. 48 hours may not even be enough to force discussion. Also, as is typical in these matters, people can just step away from the article and continue warring after the protection expires. Meanwhile, editors who want to put forth meaningful information (and who are uninvolved in the conflict) are kept back needlessly. I know that's a risk in every protection, but when working with established editors, so far I've seen fairly good results with warnings such as this one. Rest assured, I'll take further measures if somebody keeps pushing. Master of Puppets 15:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC) I have made a total of two edits on this article - one of which was correcting an error I made in coding my first edit - why am I getting accused of edit warring on my talk page??? Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC) This? From what I'm seeing, you restored contested material. That constitutes edit warring. Master of Puppets 16:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC) What MoP said, and also likely because you made your second edit to restore information that is being discussed here, without first noting that an edit-warring warning had been placed both here at talk, and -- by using a null edit -- in the edit summary history of the article itself. UA 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Look, I read about the page on a noticeboard, came here, looked at a source, said hey, that's a well-referenced source and reinserted it. I checked back and the edit summary made it look like I had actually deleted the souurce rather than reinserting it... so I edited a second time based on that.Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC) One "source" is nothing more than a blog. One "source" is nothing more than an attack book. The other source only references the name of the president. How is that "well-referenced"? I believe in man-made global warming, but BLPs need much better sources than that, for material that may be deemed controversial. UA 16:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Please define the term "attack book", and then please explain how you come to the conclusion that this is one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Despite the "this isn't an endorsement of the present version" it certainly looks like one. Care to justify the removal, or restore the material? Thanks, Verbal chat 16:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC) WP:AGF (sorry for being cliche and linking to that). And not really, there's not much to it; personal opinion isn't affecting anything here. Master of Puppets 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC) If you need to apologise for an action while doing it, then maybe you should think twice about doing it. My question was perfectly legitimate, and this response was rude (as is that below). Verbal chat 16:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Subtly attacking the credibility of the administrator who responded to the RFPP is probably not a great idea. UA 16:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC) But the reply is rather easy: this is a BLP, the material has been challenged, thus it stays out until consensus is reached to add it. Do you really see consensus here? UA 16:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)It wasn't subtle and it wasn't an attack, unlike your failure to WP:AGF. Was it an administrator action or an editor action? In either case, admins should always be willing to explain their admin actions - and it isn't an attack to ask for an explanation. Personally, I find page locking or blocking of problem editors far preferable to this kind of page ownership "solution". Verbal chat 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC) You were basically accusing him of being untruthful when you said, "Despite the 'this isn't an endorsement of the present version' it certainly looks like one." That seemed like an attack to me. UA 16:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC) No I was questioning the action, which is fair and perfectly legitimate. It did look like an endorsement, which is I presume why he said it isn't. I therefore asked for a justification, and if not for a revert - these are the only two proper actions. Attacking an uninvolved editor in this way for asking a reasonable question isn't helping your argument. Verbal chat 16:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC) It's not an endorsement. Don't worry about that. Master of Puppets 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC) I gave you a justification. There are justifications for why it doesn't belong all over this page. I'm interested in how asking you to AGF is "rude"? And also how my responses have been "rude"? UA 16:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC) MoPs response is rude because of the implication that I didn't AGF, and your responses incorrect accused me of attacking another editor, failing yourself to AGF of an uninvolved editor. Verbal chat 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Perhaps the input from uninvolved editors who came here from the NPOV noticeboard shouldn't be immediately attacked as "edit warring" when we have come to a page we really don't care about in good faith to help settle a content dispute. I find the treatment here has been heavy handed to say the least. I've never been accused of edit warring over a single contentious edit before. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Perhaps you should have joined the DISCUSSION instead of the EDIT WAR. UA 16:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC) I apologize, Simon, but uninvolved or not, you effectively continued the edit war. I realize that may not have been your intention. Master of Puppets 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Erm? But how wasn't your reversions not examples of same? As a sidenote here, i should note that at least one sockpuppet was involved in this edit-war (now blocked Subsumee). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)MoP, rather than having to weakly apologise all the time, perhaps page protection and being clear why you are taking actions would be better. Simonm223s second edit seems perfectly excusable, and accusations of edit warring are not helpful. Invitation to discussion without accusations or threats would probably be better received and not result in this kind of meta dispute. I could easily say "By the way MoP, I'm sorry but if you continue to edit war I'll report you WP:AN3". Verbal chat 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Again, have faith in the civility of established editors. I don't intend to treat them like common vandals. As for an invitation to discussion, this is what everything is about (read my first edit under this header). As for Simon, he stumbled in and unknowingly continued an edit war. I didn't know his intention beforehand. Now I do, and now I can see that he didn't mean anything malicious. Case closed, really. Master of Puppets 16:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Perhaps you should take your cliché to heart yourself then, and give Simon a proper apology. Verbal chat 16:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Also, because of your non-admin actions you appear to have inflamed the situation and seriously damaged your credibility as an uninvolved admin. Verbal chat 16:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC) I'll leave that for you to decide. I'm just here to mediate. Master of Puppets 16:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Repeating my question, to MoP: Please justify your removal, and why it doesn't constitute edit warring. Thank you. Verbal chat 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Because it's an action backed up by administrative discretion. Ad hoc protection, if you will. Master of Puppets 16:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) And the justification? Verbal chat 16:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Prevention of further edit-warring by other involved parties. Master of Puppets 16:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC) That's a justification for the warnings, but not for the removal ("continuing the edit war", if you will). Care to justify? Verbal chat 16:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Spelling it out for you: He doesn't feel that full protection is merited, and wants to allow people to improve the article. He also wants to prevent edit-warring over that contested section. UA 16:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC) And how does that justify the removal, which looks like edit warring? Could you possibly let MoP answer for himself? Verbal chat 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Does 'looks like' really translate as 'is' here? I only removed it to maintain the status quo established when I first made the null edit. If I had let it go, I can almost guarantee that somebody from the opposing side would have protested, asking why the other guys should be allowed to have their version stay up even after I intervened. Master of Puppets 17:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC) A justification at last. Why didn't you say that when I first askedn instead of failing to assume good faith. The answer to your question is no, and that's why what I wrote wasn't a failure of good faith. Verbal chat 17:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Sub-section to avoid edit conflicts I told you this was a mess, MoP. I can't even remember what message board I found this article through (BLP/N, maybe?), but when I looked it over, I had some concerns. I've tried to stay out of the fray for the most part, but it's hard in situations like this one. (And I could have told you -- but didn't -- that someone was going to claim that you were involved now. Lots of bad-faith assumptions going around here.) UA 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Meh. I think I can safely state that I'm not involved. Whether or not somebody thinks otherwise is always a risk, I find. Master of Puppets 16:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (e/c?)I can't see how you should be involved, but with that said i think a temporary protection while mediating would have been much more productive. First of all because it wouldn't have sparked this furore. Your action in reverting twice, no matter the intention, does seem like edit-warring (in fact it seems to have involved more reverts than any earlier episode). Now could we get to the content issue? Which i really had left behind, but apparently have become involved in again by a notice on WP:NPOV/N, that i accidentally stumbled over. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Reverting once, and only because the editor misunderstood the argument. Just for the record. :P I agree, though; content is more important here. Master of Puppets 17:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Yeah, the first edit was a null edit to place the warning in the edit summary history. UA 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (outdent) I'm confused. MoP says he is not endorsing any particular version, but is reverting to one particular version. MoP, if you want to join the edit war, you're welcome, but that disbars you from being a neutral referee William M. Connolley (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC) So, looking further, MoP wrote: Please stop edit-warring; further warring will result in page lock.. Someone then edit warred (well, reverted; whether that is edit warring is perhaps open to interpreation). MoP then reverted. MoP: why didn't you do what you said you'd do? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Are you saying it would have been okay to let the edit war over that section continue, as long as it was restored to the version you like? He was restoring it to the status quo as it was when he intervened. UA 17:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC) It seems that nobody is reading what I say. Firstly, I didn't lock because Simon was not involved and came of good will. For that he shouldn't be reprimanded (as I first did, unknowing of the circumstance). Secondly, I reverted his edit not to support that version but to maintain, if I may plagiarize my above answer, the status quo set up when I made the null edit. Now, I'm still neutral. If somebody edit wars, regardless of what version they support, I'll lock the page. Master of Puppets 17:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Erm? Small correction. You actually didn't revert his edit - you reverted back to an even earlier version - unintentionally i presume. Simons edit's constituted a move of the section[3], while yours actually removed it[4], thus unintentionally (i presume) involving yourself in the edit-war (by taking a side). Please read the edit-history. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC) For Pete's sake, lock the page already. Your experiment failed in this case. Verbal chat 17:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Ah, OK, well I did and you did (though the timeline is now a bit tangled) so that is OK William M. Connolley (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC) I do this all the time, Verbal. It works, and very well. Unfortunately, sometimes people tend to act before they discuss and then avoid reading any explanatory words issued by administrators. I've locked the page due to Will's continued edit warring and issued him a final warning. Master of Puppets 17:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC) You only justified your edit in the last few minutes. It's hard to read your explanatory words when they don't yet appear on the page. Verbal chat 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Hold on. Why do you suddenly get to define one version as your preferred the status quo set up when I made the null edit.? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Will could have easily waited for a response (I did justify it earlier, but I didn't meet your standard of justification until I spelled everything out), or asked. Whatever, what's done is done. Will; that's when I entered this. If I had entered an edit later, it would have been that edit. Master of Puppets 17:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Comment Everybody here -- and yes, this includes you -- is being quite silly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC) I agree. :) Verbal chat 16:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're referring to here, SBHB. I've been attempting a good-faith discussion of the problems with this article, nothing more. UA 16:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC) So your personal attacks and failure to assume good faith was done in good faith? I'm glad we've resolved this without being silly... Verbal chat 16:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Please support your claim that I've made any personal attacks or failed to assume good faith, or strike those accusations. UA 17:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC) SBHB is just being light-hearted (something we need more of). Love the you :P Master of Puppets 16:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Lame. A few blocks would have been a nicer conclusion. -Atmoz (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Haha, if only it were that easy! :P Master of Puppets 17:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Full protection

When I requested protection, the article was, I believe engulfed in a slow-motion edit-war. MoP tried an unconventional solution which, unfortunately, was unsuccessful. I know that it's currently protected in the wrong version, but can we please now discuss the currently poor sourcing for that section? UA 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, time for some real discussion! Master of Puppets 17:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

can we please now discuss the currently poor sourcing for that section? - OK. Should we re-read all the above or do you have a specific problem you'd like to discuss? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still curious about this whole "attack book" thing. It's a rather odd term. Do we have reason to doubt the reliability of this published source? If so please be specific. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice that UN's request [5] for prot is distinctly partisan. This is not good faith William M. Connolley (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless can we please discuss why this source is or is not reliable? I would sort of like more data. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Connoley's attacking my motives aside, I agree with Simon. Let's start with the title of the book, and move on from there. Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change: the title alone gives great pause, wouldn't you say? UA 18:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, on the page referenced (140) the author calls skeptics' views "a strange mix of conspiracy and apocalypse." That seems like an "attack book" (not my best choice of wording, but it will suffice) to me. UA 18:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh spiffy. So you attack my motives, and I assert this isn't good faith, and then you attack me, and you're still pretending to be interested in a polite and neutral conversation? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Um... and? Is it self-pub? Vanity press? Is the author widely discredited? Lacking in appropriate education to discuss the subject? Pending libel complaints? Having a contentious title is not sufficient to make something not an RS. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing WP:RS, I would say it doesn't. The author is "Professor of Public Ethics at Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE)." The publisher is Black Inc. Books, which appears to publish a diverse catalogue of general interest works. Why wouldn't it be a reliable source for the statement that "Paltridge is a speaker at conferences organised by the Lavoisier Group?" Is there any dispute over the accuracy of that statment? Hipocrite (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The book looks like WP:RS to me. Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I quoted you why I referred to it as an "attack book." Would Ann Coulter's Treason suffice as a source about some Democrat she despises and disparages in her book? She's not selfpub or pending libel complaints. UA 18:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Ann Coulter does not have a record for fact checking and accuracy on the issue of "people she despises." Hipocrite (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore Ann Coulter isn't an ethics prof. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Add my voice to those thinking this isn't justification for rejecting this source. Verbal chat 18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While I can't stand her or her brand of politics, wouldn't she be sued if this were the case? And that aside, the quote I gave you from the very page referenced shows that the author is not without clear bias with regards to climate change skeptics. UA 18:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Add my voice to those thinking that this is justification for rejecting the source. The excerpt is an attack piece; it's possible it can be used to support facts, but the association between the group and the author is supported by the neutral and favorable references, such as the third one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm? Since when are we making content decisions within a reliable source? Either it is reliable or it isn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary (where we are)

The first ref, used to source "Paltridge is a speaker at conferences organised by the Lavoisier Group," is challenged as not reliable for non-contentious facts about Climate Change Deniers. The entire section may be OR-by-SYNTH. The section is of questionable importance to the article as a whole. Is that give or take a summary of the dispute, in it's entirety? Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you be clear about which ref, exactly? and could someone clarify whether it is disputed that GP has spoken to Lavoisier? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the disputed ref is the Scorched book. Hipocrite (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(to Hipocrite) Almost. I can't speak for {{POV}} tags which may have been added previously, and I believe that, if the section were to be kept at all, it would probably be better to source "Paltridge is a speaker at conferences organised by the Lavoisier Group," to the Lavoisier Group itself, rather than to a source which could not be used for anything which is conceivably contentious, as has occured in previous versions referring to the Lavoisier Group as being climate change deniers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the source

Pardon me but so far it would appear that the argument against the source is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I stand by my initial feeling - source is valid. Simonm223 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not on my part. The argument is that the relevant section appears to be an opinion piece, at best, and more likely, IMHO, an attack piece. Regardless of whether the book, publisher, or author, is generally reliable, that section should not be quoted as a reliable source, in the absence of certification that the publisher (not the author, because of WP:BLP concerns) stands behind every word in the book. It may be as bad as Paltridge's book in that regard. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And once more: Huh? Is it really possible to decide for us (as editors), which parts of a reliable source is reliable and which is not? I doubt it. Either the book is inappropriate and not a reliable source here - or it is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(to Hipocrite) Almost. I can't speak for {{POV}} tags which may have been added previously, and I believe that, if the section were to be kept at all, it would probably be better to source "Paltridge is a speaker at conferences organised by the Lavoisier Group," to the Lavoisier Group itself, rather than to a source which could not be used for anything which is conceivably contentious, as has occured in previous versions referring to the Lavoisier Group as being climate change deniers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)(Copied here by Hipocrite (talk))

Ok. Is there a real objection to removing the reference to the Scorched book and using the Lavoisier Group instead? Hipocrite (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a real objection. The Scorched book has every hallmark of a reliable source and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for removing a WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I object as well. I'm not married to the book, but for us as editors to decide which parts of a reliable source is reliable or not, simply isn't an argument that i can buy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Objectively, that section has no business in an encyclopedia. I would go so far as to say it shouldn't be referred to in an encyclopedia except as it indicates the author's opinion. It cannot be treated as a statement of "fact".

On the other hand, we do have to decide which parts of a "reliable source" are "reliable" for which facts.

• Editorial pages of a newspaper, or even of a peer-reviewed journal, are only sources for notability or the editor's opinion, not for statements of "fact".
• An individual's statement can be used as a reliable source for statements about himself, provided they are not "overly self-serving" and do not include contentious statements about other individuals.
• Whether a generally unreliable source may be used as the "source" of a courtesy link depends on the exact details.
• Blurbs on the back cover or inside cover of a book are unreliable statements by the books publicist, not necessary of any use, even if the author and publisher would both be reliable sources.

There are many editorial decisions that we must make, depending on the nature of the information sourced, the precise location of the material within the "reliable source", and probably a number of things I can't think of at the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The first argument i can buy (don't know if i agree or not though - which was also why i've only made one contribution in this). As for the second, this is not an Op-Ed or an editorial, nor is it promotional material (inside cover and blurbs), all of which wouldn't be reliable... It is instead a published book, by (what i assume from above) an expert on the topic, printed by a respectable publisher. Thus by definitions in WP:RS it is nominally a reliable source, and we have to consider it as such, and by default also the content within. Your argument though, seems to be that the book is pure opinion, and that may be so (i do not have an opinion either way)... but in that case it is not a reliable source So we are back to the basics: Is the book reliable or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy, including ethics, is built on opinion and logic. As this is a specialist in public-sphere ethics if we discount him we must discount every other philosophy professor to write on anything on the same grounds. I am not prepared to do so. Argument simply boils down, as I have said to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's accurate (the field really is "public-sphere ethics", and this book and author are otherwise reliable), we must attribute any statement in that sphere. It's too contentious for an article about or referring to a living person. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This i do not agree on. The liability for the information is the reliable source. We cannot as a tertiary source make decisions as to whether information is "contentious" or not - that is something that solely rests with the secondary sources. What we can do, is look at the relative weight of information, and the reliability of the sources in general. Your argument seems to be that the book is pure opinion of the author, but you haven't provided any argumentation for this... If the book is such, then it is not reliable - but if it instead is a regular work - then it is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also vehemently disagree as per above.Simonm223 (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's clearly wrong. Quoting WP:BLP#Reliable sources:

• Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And what makes you state that the book contains gossip? As your quote states: is the source reliable? (which is what i've been asking all along) This would certainly indicate so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Page 139 contains quite a bit of gossip. The sentence preceding the only one actually used from the reference consists of speculative gossip. And it's quite clear that one part of a source can be reliable for some information, and other parts of the same source may not be reliable, even for the same information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that its "clear" - nor do i think that its appropriate for us as editors to decide which parts of reliable sources that are reliable (or gossip (how do you know that the information on p140 isn't carefully researched?)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Protected edit request

{{editprotected}} Please tag the section in question (whatever name it's under) with Importance and POV tags. Although I don't agree with it being a POV violation, it has been discussed before, as has WP:SYN. The tags in question are: {{POV-section}}, {{Synthesis|section}}, and {{Importance-section}}. As I said, I don't neceessary agree with all the tags, but they all have been under discussion recently. I also request a {{verify credibility}} tag on the first reference, as the excerpt pointed to by the Google Books URL is clearly not an attempt to write something factual, but only as an opinion piece; and a {{verify source}} tag on the third reference, as it seems to relate to the section as a whole, not supporting any specific phrase in the current protected version. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

3 tags seems excessive. {{issues}} perhaps? Hipocrite (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• It should be noted that the contentious section was readded just prior to protection, and should probably be removed until the issues with it are hashed out here at talk. UA 18:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong version? I oppose any edit-protected to change content. Thought it would be nice if the "-" in the front of the section were fixed. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:WRONG, and stop canvassing. You asked for this prot, and helped cause it with your edit warring. Stop complainnig about the mess you've made William M. Connolley (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Replying to your additions, William, I haven't edit warred. I made one edit. You, on the other hand, have edit warred, made this personal with your attacks, and made it clear you would edit war until you got your way. (See your "join the edit war" comment to MoP in the collapsed thread.) This is certainly not acceptable, at least in my reading of how BLP-related content disputes should work. UA 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not about the wrong version thing, it's about Connoley sliding an edit in before the protection that violates MoP's stated "as I found it when I arrived" rationale. UA 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So, in other words, the wrong version was protected because of the nefarious actions of the evil WMC? Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. MoP had a stated rationale when he attempted the unconventional solution. I think many people didn't even realize that Connoley had slid that edit in before protection. It doesn't seem like MoP realized the section was reinserted before he protected it. UA 18:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So MoP prefered to protect the right version, but he was duped by the EVIL WMC, and protected the wrong version? I was going to assume good faith that MoP was just trying to ignore rules and solve the problem with his earlier "DON'T REVERT MY REVERT," which I was fine with, but you're alledging that he prefers a version, and protected the article on the other version by accident, so someone should revert the article, while it's protected, to MoP's preferred version? Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please learn to spell, and read WP:WRONG like you still haven't William M. Connolley (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of us are disabled and are actually unable to spell without putting outrageous effort in - myself, for example. Plz don't assault other's spellin. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You I'll forgive if needed, though I don't see it as being necessary. UN repeadely making the same error on my name I won't William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've used {{disputed}} and tagged the disputed ref. More than one section-level tag would be completely excessive for a one-line subsection.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what you choose to "forgive", William, as I've done nothing to you that particularly needs "forgiving." You have a long last name. It's easily misspelled. This is why I'm now using your first name when communicating with you, as you seem to take great umbrage at the slightest misspelling of your name. You, on the other hand, can call me "UN" all you like. I know you're referring to me, and it's really no big deal. UA 00:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

{{issues}} is fine with me, as long as the specific subtags are included. Three tags for 2 lines does seem excessive, but the issues have all been brought up in regard the section, and none have been resolved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please try again {{disputed}} is wrong. The factual accuracy of each statement in the section is not disputed, as far as I know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If the admin got it wrong, it's probably because this discussion is a mess and the request was unclear ;) I have reverted it for now. Please clarify what you want doing, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate tags are probably {{POV-section}}, {{Synthesis|section}}, and {{Importance-section}}. "{{disputed-section}}" doesn't fit, in my opinion. I don't think anyone disputed that the section is factually. I agree that 3 tags for 1-2 lines seems excessive; if one tag needs to be chosen to indicate the dispute, I think {{Importance-section}} is probably the most — important — tag covering the dispute as per the present copy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose those tags; not supported. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course they're supported; whether there is consensus that they are necessary, or even appropriate, is open, but all have been supported by direct pointers to the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)