Talk:William Connolley/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This person isn't famous or interesting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI, I just deleted Rapley's bio blurb as a copyvio. Dragons flight 20:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that William Connolley is a vanity page. If you disagree - shoot me. --SandyDancer 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I love the way that the whole WP:CIVIL thing goes out the window on this talk page! Hey - tjstrf - why don't you get a life? Go make some useful edits elsewhere? I don't dislike the subject of this article - who is a nobody - I just don't think it is right that he is exempt from WP:VAIN. --SandyDancer 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it is arguable whether Will passes WP:PROF or not but the observation that many people do seem to come here in retaliation seems to be accurate. JoshuaZ 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)`

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

Comment I don't think anyone meant to imply that every person who makes comments about deleting this is doing to it retaliate, just that many are. If you think it should be deleted then AfD it. JoshuaZ 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There isn't any point, doing so would just invite abuse from the group of fellow admins who defend the article. --SandyDancer 10:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• He is clearly more notable than many of the crackpots that show up on AFD. But it is by no means obvious that he is more notable than some run-of-the-mill Assistant Professor who may get deleted under WP:PROF. (Is he really more than a glorified post-doc with blogs?) What I find disquieting is that so many of the keep votes did not concern themselves with independent evidence of notability. Instead, many just repeated "he is notable", "bad faith nom", and so on. That really makes it look as if a WP insider is getting special favors. Leibniz 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To both Leibniz and Sandy's comment, I would think and hope that an AfD made by an essentially uninvolved user in good standing in the project would be taken more seriously than the previous AfDs. JoshuaZ 13:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting myself & L are indeed "uninvolved users in good standing" or that we aren't? Question not meant to be aggressive by the way I am just asking for clarification! I have had no beef with Connolley before, I have no view on him as an admin - though I suspect he is excellent in role, he wouldn't command such loyalty if he wasn't. --SandyDancer 14:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would think that both you and Leibniz would be in that category (unless there is some interaction between you and Will that I missed). JoshuaZ 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Naw ... in my opinion he isn't even a good admin. He was snotty and rude in the only interaction I had with him. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

and, for comparison:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, if you think so, then AfD it. JoshuaZ 03:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[Unproductive discussion archived to Talk:William Connolley/ArchiveBickering]. --Stephan Schulz 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible WP:AUTO problem

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

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

Criticisms? This person has no criticism?

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

If you find anything that fullfills the requirements of WP:BLP, feel free to add it. Wikipedia arguments aren't. For the rest, see old talk and three AdDs that found otherwise.--Stephan Schulz 07:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

When Garfield the cat has a criticisms section and this guy doesn't, something is out of wack. But I don't want to delete, having his own page here (obviously written by his kooky Green party pals) just shows how bad of an "encyclopedia" Wikipedia really is. Maybe I'll give my Grandma a page when I get some time later. Cheers.--Rotten 07:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but sooner or later, somebody else will. I'll try to be gentle. Garfield is not a living person. In related news, neither is Santa Claus. Both, however, are a bit more widely known than William, and may have attracted some criticism verifiable from reliable sources. If I wanted to totally offset your world view, I would also point out that by deleting something, you will not add a criticism section. --Stephan Schulz 07:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, to follow on what you said, if someone was really notable enough to deserve such a long article on Wikipedia, you would expect that he would have been the subject of some criticism somewhere no? (perhaps not as much as Garfield or Santa, but still) --Childhood's End 13:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT paper. The length of an article has nothing to do with notability of the subject. Either a subject is notable enough for an article, or not. Also, the article is a mere two pages, half of that references and publications. But again, feel free to add relevant and verifiable criticism. --Stephan Schulz 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

He's been the subject of plenty of criticism[1], and rightfully so. The fact that his vanity-page yet lives, or that such criticism is not at least reflected in said page, speaks volumes about the Good Ol' Boy culture of Wikipedia. I grow more disgusted with this web site each day. Note that this opinion would rapidly change if I were allowed to have my own article, too. So, how 'bout it? Can I? Pretty please? --70.105.253.147 21:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not generally condconsidered a good source, especially not if they are two years out of date. And given that you have been participating a whole whopping day, your digust cannot be that big. Or have you possibly just forgotten to log in? If you have a couple of scientific publications and are mentioned in major print publications, you can of course have your own article. Just find a worthy opponent like User: Ed Poor who thinks you are notable. Or swim down Niagara Falls, or be elected President of the United States. We are not very picky. --Stephan Schulz 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles are not generally condiered [sic] a good source . . ." Yeah, try telling that to William. ~ UBeR 22:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between the two Uber...but then, you know that already. Guettarda 23:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Difference between what? They're the same thing. ~ UBeR 16:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So are my feelings only valid from the point when I begin making edits, or is it possible that I've felt disillusioned with what I've seen as a clear bias on Wikipedia for some time now? As for logging in, I had an account in the early days of Wikipedia (2002 I believe), but forgot the password long ago, and almost never logged in. Having witnessed the problems related to user-page vandals, I probably wouldn't bother anyway -- especially considering that registering brings me no benefits. An IP address should be enough for others to identify me[2], but if you like I can start signing with a pseudonym. Besides, you clearly place no value on the opinions of registered users, since you don't count the criticisms I sourced as worthy. Incidentally, if I did happen to find a peer critique of Mr. Connolley that was two years old, would you accept it? --70.105.253.147 00:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you like that, me and Stephan both broke the 3RR rule, however I was banned for 24 hours and Stephan was warned. Wikipedia is clearly unbiased, right? Haha! --Rotten 04:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

With that statement you just demonstrate that you don't understand either WP:3RR or WP:BLP. Have a nice day.... --Stephan Schulz 08:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand them and I understand that WP:BLP didn't apply here. The fact is that the subject of this article edited his own biography and favorable and lasting ways. This was a start for criticism of this person.--Rotten 11:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It goes more to show Atlant doesn't understand WP:3RR, and he fully demonstrated that he didn't with his further comments. Regardless, neither Dr. Schulz or Rotten violated 3RR, but Rotten was indeed blocked for 24 hours for "violating 3RR." ~ UBeR 18:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what a "peer critique" could comprise, but if it is published by a reliable source and properly attributable taking into account WP:BLP, certainly. An IP adress only identifies you if it's static. And of course anonymity has no influence on the validity of your arguments. It does, however, influence whether people take the argument serious. --Stephan Schulz 00:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Which "people"? You've already made it clear that you do not take the arguments of registered users seriously. --70.105.253.147 01:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. For registered users, I can look at their contributions and arguments over time, and form an opinion. Some of them I take serious, some I dismiss as irrelevant, and some are borderline cases. The world (and Wikipedia) is to big to reason purely from first principles. I do take someones history into account before I decide how much time I spend with his or her arguments. But a two year old RfC on an open wiki and since superceded by two ArbCom cases is about as useful as phlogiston.--Stephan Schulz 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

All this is irrelevant to the article. Simple question - are you aware of any reliable sources of criticism? If so - please provide them. If not, then there really isn't anything to discuss here. Guettarda 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Um. You have no source for the criticism, neither reliable nor unreliable. All you have is evidence for the act. And that act is in full agreement with WP:AUTO (quote: "However, in clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. [..] Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on.". Anyways, WP:BLP requires multiple independent reliable sources, and you have not one applicable source. Reverted again under the BLP exception. If you insist, I will take this to AN/I. --Stephan Schulz 13:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, William Connelly made changes to this biography, some of which cast him in a better light and some of which still stand to this day. It should be noted that this biography has been edited by the subject, if Wikipedia is to retain any credibility as an independent encyclopedia, it should be noted when users are editing their own biography. --Rotten 13:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For that purpose, there exists Template:Notable Wikipedian. And I don't see how the edit you link to "cast him in a better light" - it mostly fixes a number of errors. Anyways, all this is irrelevant. WP:BLP applies and is intentionally one of the most strictly enforced policies on Wikipedia.--Stephan Schulz 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Stephen, are you and William lovers?65.12.145.148 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is Stephen? --Stephan Schulz 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion

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

Removed tag from page. Subject is notable as a climatologist and also as a Wikipedian. The article has survived afd before. Vsmith 19:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, he's not. See criteria. Blogging doesn't count. And notable in Wiki for posting in Wiki??? I guess if Paris Hilton can be famous for being famous, so can WMC. Thanks for devaluing the work of every Wiki editor. (This is not intended to be [[3]])67.141.235.203 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Subliminal Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

When did I address William?

You seem to imply that a clique should be able to put up vanity pages about the other members of the clique, this is simply a neat loophole to circumvent the rules. ~ Rameses 23:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so in your world William and Ed (now on Conservapedia) are best buds? And do you intend to answer any of the points? --Stephan Schulz 00:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Info

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

Added some criticism

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

I've reverted this attack, vandalising Wikipedia in pursuit of intra-wiki disputes.JQ 06:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly this user has compromised his own vanity page by editing it, no? You have to agree with that? --71.232.157.145 07:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mu. --Stephan Schulz 07:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"No" would have sufficed. ~ -- UBeR (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it wouldn't. "Mu" is a more elegant and logical answer. The question presupposed that this is a vanity page. According to our article on the subject, "mu" can be interpreted as follows: "Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions." MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well clearly this needs to be mentioned on this webpage. I will add it in later.--71.232.157.145 07:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst (The sound of yet another coat of teflon being sprayed on WMC's armor.) Sagredo^Discussione? 08:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny, it seemed to me more like the sound of yet another anonymous troll attempting to harass a respected scientist who contributes to Wikipedia under his own name. Sadly, anonymous trolls are an endlessly renewable resource - experts willing to put up with this place, not so much. MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Snarfed. --22:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

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

If you feel it does not meet the notability requirements for biographies or academics, then you can consider nominating it for deletion via the articles-for-deletion process. Generally, however, only registered users can nominate articles for deletion through this process, and bad-faith nominations are frowned upon. MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick reading of the article should allow anyone to realize this is good faith. Seriously, for what is he notable? A former climate modeler? A software designer? A failed politician? Having some papers published? With all respect, this is not MySpace.67.141.235.203 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. If those are your concerns, then the appopriate way to address them is to nominate the article for deletion via WP:AfD. That's the only way it can be deleted at this point, so it's probably not that useful to keep arguing the case here. MastCell ^Talk 21:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In truth, I believe it's good to discuss these issues before WP:AfD.65.12.145.148 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Amateur Status

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

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

"prominent in debates about climate change between 2001 and 2007"

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

I wish his "supporters" would recognize that the absence of a Wikipedia page does not mean that his credentials, intelligence, knowledge, or position on this issue are in doubt. There are many intelligent, knowledgeable minds out there who do not get Wikipedian recognition. I've grown to respect WMC a little more as a person, but the fact remains: until this person does something notable he does not deserve a Wikipedian page.--71.232.157.145 (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The subject fulfills the basic requirements of Wikipedia: There are multiple reliable sources about him. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

He was prominent here. Isn't Wikipedia the centre of the universe? :) Guettarda (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Note about Solomons Column

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

I just went back and re-read:

√ - Wikipedia:Verifiability

√ - Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

√ - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

√ - Wikipedia:Reliable sources

√ - Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid

I don't see where two edits run afoul of any of these.

Solomon's article in the National Post is perfectly acceptable. The National Post is a large Canadian newspaper. Solomon's article was not self-published and was subject to editorial oversight. It represents the most extensive coverage of Connolley in the press to date. The New Yorker article cited gives him just two paragraphs. The Nature article is behind a paywall; if it's been quoted properly in this e-mail, then it made only passing reference to Connolley. (In fact, I don't think this article meets the specific requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) without the National Post reference.)

Connolley's blog is self-published but also suitable as a reference since it is published by the subject of the article himself.

Note that as written, my did not express any opinion on Wikipedia's part; it just stated each man's position. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind too much if this goes in (in proper form) or not. But the National Post and Solomon in particular are not reliable sources on anything related to global warming. As for the article in question, the first sentence is hyperbole, and the second is simply wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view, except that, if the criticism goes in, so must the reply. But I think this case illustrates a broader point that a distinction for WP:RS based solely on publication form (newspapers reliable, blogs not) can't work. Obviously, for example, RealClimate is a much more reliable source on climate change than the National Post (actually it's more reliable than the New York Times, which slips up more often than it should).JQ (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not an article it's a opinion column. Since when did we include random criticism from columns/blogs into BLPs? It's a clear violation of WP:BLP in my opinion...
– Apis (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this is not just some blog post, if I understand the National Post's Web site correctly. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, it originated as a blog post, and then was promoted to whatever status it has now. It still shows signs of the high-quality editorially controlled cut'n paste... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) (It says "blog" in the url if that's any indication: "http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx". Trivia: that's the original title btw, they sneakily changed it to the opinionator later.)
– Apis (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We presently have 413 links to the National Post -- it looks like there's some precedent for using this as a reference. As for Solomon, his book on global warming is one of the most prominent of the skeptics'; like it or not, it's #82 on Amazon's Canadian bestseller list. (#291, U.S.; #5748, U.K.). It's been reviewed in the Vancouver Sun,^[4] Washington Times^[5] and Forbes^[6] (not to mention the Prince George Citizen).^[7] None of this makes him right … or wrong; it does, however, make his criticism significant. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Note also that the National Post does not have to be a scientific journal in this context nor does Solomon have to be a tenured professor. The topic of the article is about Connolley's role on Wikipedia, not ice core measurements from the Penny Ice Cap. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I see comments about Solomon's piece starting as a blog post but is that relevant if it subsequently ended up under the aegis of the newspaper's editorial supervision? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Again: I didn't complain about the National Post being a reliable source, I reverted it because it is criticism from a opinion column used as source in a BLP.
– Apis (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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

"Again: I didn't complain about the National Post being a reliable source, I reverted it because it is criticism from a opinion column used as source in a BLP" … so if Margaret Thatcher criticizes Gordon Brown in a newspaper column, we don't quote her in our Gordon Brown article (and cite the column as a source)? After all, we're not saying that we criticize (or endorse) Connolley; we're just quoting criticism from a major global warming skeptic in a major newspaper. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, there are 3 relevant editorial questions here:

1. When are comments critical of an article's subject and published in a major newspaper column allowed? Not allowed? If disallowed, is that because they violate WP:BLP or WP:V?
2. If an newspaper column originally started out as a blog entry but then later appeared as a column, does that disqualify it as a self-published blog post? Even if it's later published?
3. Can a newspaper column such as Solomon's establish a subject's notability per WP:BIO?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I doubt it, although I guess it would depend on the circumstances. On the other hand, Solomon isn't Margret Thatcher and William isn't Gordon Brown. I presume that we should include that Solomon also have said that "Next to Al Gore, William Connolley may be the world's most influential person in the global warming debate" if we are to use his column as a reliable source for this? I still think opinion columns should be used very carefully as sources for BLPs.
– Apis (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the rest of what Solomon writes, it's mainly criticism of Wikipedia and Wikipedias internal affairs. He can hardly be considered an authority on WP (as far as I am aware).
– Apis (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of the questions you're answering.

If Solomon's article does not establish notability (I think it does), then this article probably doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF, given the lightness of coverage elsewhere. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a response to one of the three questions. I still don't feel the column is even remotely relevant. I guess you could argue that since Solomon has written a book skeptical of global warming, his opinion on global warming would be notable enough for inclusion in WP somewhere. However, if you read the article it is manly criticism of WP and Connolleys role as an administrator and his editing style, I don't see how Solomons view on that is relevant.

The article appear to have been up for deletion more than once already and the result have been to keep it (even without mention of Solomons column).
– Apis (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through each of the first 4 AfDs and it's not clear they were open and shut keeps by today's norms:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Connolley was very superficial.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Connolley (2nd nomination) did not cite any references establishing notability. Some of the keep sentiment was based on this AfD following within 4 months of the first.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Connolley (3rd nomination) included substantive discussion but without many refs. It was asserted that Connolley met the professor test but with no discussion of how. There was also discussion as to whether his participation with RealClimate made him notable.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Connolley (4th nomination) closed as a keep largely based on the fact there had been 3 previous AfDs

Nowadays I see the community asking for more specifics as to just how an article meets our notability requirements and I've certainly seen articles go through multiple AfDs before eventual deletion.

I'll also note that there are possibly sources out there that aren't cited; Google News archive and Google Scholar searches have improved a lot in the last 18 months allowing us to find more references in the case of otherwise marginally notable subjects. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If you do not believe that the articles subject is notable, then start a new AfD. The concept of using an argument such as "if we do not use this, then the subject is not notable" as an inclusion parameter, instead of basing it on reliable sources and the guidelines for biographies is (to my eyes) very wrong.

The Solomon article is an Op-Ed/Editorial, and as such it is not reliable for anything other than Mr. Solomon's opinion. And since Mr. Solomon's opinion raises the red flag (take the opinion that Connolley is the 2nd most important person...) - its definitively out. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am starting a scorecard below so that we can get a sense of where things lie. By my reading thus far it leans towards the Yea side, although that depends on my interpretation of User:UBeRs intent with his comment.

If we are leaning towards the Yea side can we please compromise on some language to include? I was fine with this version, [8], although some seem to have a problem with having WMC compared to Al Gore. As amusing as it is to watch WMC's supporters arguing that he has no influence, I am not married to the comparison, especially since this was not my text to begin with. If we remove the reference to Al Gore somehow or water it down a bit would you still object to the inclusion of something comparable? --GoRight (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Upon reading the opening sentence of the Op/Ed I see that Solomon is actually misquoted in the above version. He clearly expressed his comparison with the qualification "may be", so would the following be more palatable?

In a May 2008 editorial, Lawrence Solomon, a critic of the accepted theories on global warming, argued that Connolley's influence on the global warming debate may be second only to that of Al Gore as a result of his position at Wikipedia.

Lawrence Solomon (2008-05-03). "The opinionator". National Post. Retrieved 2008-06-23.

This makes it much more clear that this is Solomon's opinion and not a statement of fact which should dispense with the calls of it being WP:REDFLAG. --GoRight (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Note also that this is actually more of a comment on the influence of Wikipedia as a resource than it is specifically about WMC. In other words, WMC is influential BECAUSE of his work here on Wikipedia. --GoRight (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Crickets? Does that mean there are no objections to this proposal? If people don't articulate their objections I can only assume that said objections no longer exist, especially in light of the current state of the Scorecard below.

Since there is no consensus - and since the major problems haven't been resolved - i gather that the crickets are rather loud. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly have you revived an old discussion, from over a month ago, and started to tally that? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(a) Because they reflect the last known positions of editors based on their actual participation in a related discussion, and (b) so that the scorecard reflects this historical debate. You would prefer that I ignore the previous discussion on this topic? Remember, WP:CCC but it seems appropriate to use as a starting point the previous level of consensus, no? --GoRight (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course consensus can change, which is why things are being discussed and not dismissed. But consensus is not a vote. If you want to assess consensus, then i'd suggest a strawpoll instead of a subjective tally of two different discussions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Vote? Who said vote? I have produced a simple tally for the purpose of assessing percentages based the commentary provided by the various users, as well as asking them to update their positions if I have incorrectly assessed them. Is this not, then, fundamentally a straw poll since you seem to prefer that term instead of scorecard? We an change the title to Straw Poll if you prefer, but then we should contact each user and ask them to weigh in if desired.

Now, for a brief walk down memory lane, do you remember this [9] and this [10]? Have I not done exactly what you indicated should be the next appropriate step in that case, which is essentially the same as this one at this point, and produced an assessment of the previous discussion(s) on the point at hand? Why the change of heart? --GoRight (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Scorecard

OK, I have gone through the comments in this section, in the WP:REDFLAG section, and the actual editing activity to see where people seem to come down on this point. I am listing it here but if I have somehoe misunderstood your position feel free to correct it.

On the general issue of including some mention of the Solomon piece in this BLP, in a proper form of course, we have:

Yeas:

1. A. B. - Yes
2. MastCell - Yes
3. GoRight - Yes
4. 72.209.10.176 - Yes
5. Kendrick7 - Yes
6. UBeR - Neutral? Yes? [11]

Nays:

1. Apis - No
2. Kim D. Petersen - No
3. Cool Hand Luke - No
4. Vsmith - No
5. Stephan Schulz - Neutral? [12] No? [13]

Neutral:

1. JQ - Neutral

No criticism allowed?

Given Mr. Connolley's propensity for placing criticism in the bios of those with whom he disagrees, why are we forbidden from adding criticism to his bio? I have tried to provide just such a criticism section using a source that is already referenced here but the content of which has been systematically scrubbed of the negative aspects from the article. I am being told (see User_talk:R._Baley#Mr._Connolley.27s_Bio and User_talk:GoRight#POV_pushing_and_BLP_vio) that I cannot "attack" WMC, which I take to mean post any criticism of any kind no matter the quality of the sources, lest I be blocked.

I notice that the Solomon piece has already been discussed above yet no criticism of WMC has been forthcoming despite The National Post being a WP:RS as evidenced by citations from it in many articles. Can I assume that should I include a summary and reference to the solomon piece that you all will simply block my efforts at putting some balance to this page?

--GoRight (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first sentence very much shows a depressing degree of revanchism. What does WMC's editing have to do with how we treat him as an encyclopedic subject? As for a criticism section, they are generally discouraged. You can add notable criticism if you have reliable sources that comply with WP:BLP. An editorial is not usually an acceptable source, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As expected.  :) His editing has very much to do with how people's bios are treated as an encyclopedic subject. His editing is representative of the norm for all such edits, is it not, as well as being completely within WP:BLP standards, right? As such his editing serves as an exemplar for correct behavior which we should seek to emulate. That is, of course, unless you adhere to the notion that WMC can just willy nilly attack his adversaries in their bios whilst reserving the right to object to any comparable editing of his page.

And just why is an editorial in a major news source not an acceptable source? Any criticism is opinion by its very nature and in this case it has nothing to do with global warming so your usual fallbacks don't apply.

Even so, you (as a group) have already accepted the New Yorker article as WP:RS, at least for the parts that you like. Do you object to my summarizing the negative aspects presented there and adding them as criticism based on that same source?

If you object how is that NOT WP:UNDUE given that part of the article has already been cherry-picked/referenced? Obviously User:R._Baley disagrees although he is seriously lacking for an explanation of just how his assertions are valid with respect to my supposed violation of WP:BLP. --GoRight (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:BLP and WP:V. The New Yorker article does not criticize WMC, it describes this episode as a temporary failure of Wikipedia. See WP:NOR: "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research; see below." Your comment about WP:UNDUE makes no sense - please rephrase it. WP:UNDUE only applies to the article, not to objections on the talk page. You are also somewhat incoherent in your first paragraph. WMC has not objected to any "comparable editing of his page" - in fact, he does not even watch it. Leading questions aside, Wikipedia policies apply, regardless of where and how you choose your role models. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes. We have been through this all before. I have read all of these quite thoroughly.

The main focus of the New Yorker article is quite irrelevant to the point of my edit, actually, since my edit is not meant to be a summarization of the article in question. I am merely quoting a well established FACT as documented in a now acknowledged WP:RS. I have not given any personal interpretation to the meaning of that FACT, I have merely provided it here for readers to assess on their own along with a proper citation as is customary to allow interested readers to follow if they so wish. Neither the criticism quoted, nor the manner in which it was described in the WP:RS, is of my writing. I quoted a fact from the article verbatum and wish to leave it stand on its own.

The WP:UNDUE discussion above is quite simple. The New Yorker article in question provides relevant facts on both sides of the incident being discussed. The current bio only represents one side of those facts. I wish for both sides to be represented since the current article is WP:UNDUE by virtue of being one sided.

You are correct on the point about WMC not being the one objecting here, so I stand corrected with the simple observation that he has you here to do it for him, apparantly. --GoRight (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that the text related to The New Yorker reference has been reworked by a couple of other editors. I believe that the current version represents a reasonably NPOV with respect to the content of the article. Since my two primary points have been included in a reasonable way I am satisfied with the current revision. Do others agree or disagree? --GoRight (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a grey area, where an opinion piece presents alleged fact. However, opinion pieces can be notable and can thus be source of notable opinion about the subject. A new Solomon piece appeared today, republished by cbsnews.com site, I noticed it because an IP editor tried to insert it into the article today as an external link, reverted by Petersen. Wikipropaganda On Global Warming. We can argue all day about the opinion part, but the story is, to a good deal, about facts we could independently verify, so then we would have a notable source referring to verified fact, which isn't quite so easy to dismiss. Tricky. --Abd (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what we have then is a piece of WP:OR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what we have now is an opinion which was published in not one WP:RS but in three, the National Post, the National Review Online, and now CBS News. Are you now saying that CBS News is not WP:RS enough for you? --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Its still the exact same opinion from the exact same person. And it still raises the exact same red flag issues as the others did. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but with three times the editorial oversight from increasingly reliable sources. Per WP:BLP Op/Ed's are valid to use here for the author's opinion. --GoRight (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

On the assumption that there was more than a superficial editorial oversight (which there commonly isn't on Op-Ed's), it still won't fly. (nb: WP:BLP does not allow for Op-Ed's (thats WP:RS)) - What you have here is that Solomon has a conflict of interest, he is a party in this dispute - therefore we can't take his word on anything. (just as we couldn't take WMC's as such). We need... just as WP:BLP requires: Third party sources on this subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some evidence that reliable sources such as those being discussed here are willing to print anything in an Op/Ed with only superficial editorial oversight? Are you suggesting that Solomon can literally print anything in these sources with no one reviewing the content? I find that assertion to be rather suspect, actually, especially in the case of the National Review Online and CBS News pieces as Solomon has no particular affiliation with them on an ongoing basis.

To accept your assertion that these latter two sources provided only superficial editorial oversight (i.e. essentially none), we have to believe that these reputable sources will print opinion pieces from basically anyone ... even people who lack notability such as Solomon by your own estimation of the man, and further, that they would be willing to print material which is "absurd", again, by you own estimation of the material. Personally I don't believe that any reputable news source would operate this way, since this would be the very definition of not operating in a reputable manner. That these latter two sources are considered reputable is undeniable.

While the National Post and the National Review Online might be open to charges of merely printing the piece in support of their alleged political leanings, CBS News is hardly what one would call a right-wing organization. One would have to believe that the fact the piece had already been published in two sources with an alleged right-wing bias would, in fact, have cause the piece to receive extra scrutiny at CBS News and yet they still agreed to print it.

No, the editorial oversight that this piece must have received from three separate news sources provides the 3rd party objectivity which you seek. --GoRight (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"...reverted by Petersen..." Huh? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG

The Solomon article is so far beyond reasonable, that to use it here (or anywhere) is rather foolish. Op-Ed's and Editorials are only reliable sources to the opinion of their author. And in a WP:BLP environment, anything that raises a red flag in the way that this article does is acceptable. Connolley is most certainly not the second most important figure in the global warming debate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

...and Solomon's opinion is not particularly notable in an article on WMC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, Solomon's views are his own, obviously, but they have been professionally published in a reliable source as an Op/Ed. This makes them WP:RS for the purposes of citation on Wikipedia as you well know. His most recent claim to fame is clearly related to the topic of GW, specifically deniers, and he is well versed in the political aspects of the AGW debate. He is, therefore, a reliable source on who is and isn't being influential on both sides. So his opinion is, in fact, directly pertinent in this case since the text in question is politically oriented and not about the science. --GoRight (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - published != WP:RS. Op-Ed are not reliable sources to anything but a single persons opinion. (just like self published sources), and your claim that Solomon should be an authority on the political aspects of the AGW debate is frankly laughable. Perhaps you may want to address the red flag instead? (which you seem to ignore) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, let me consider WP:REDFLAG ... OK, read it twice just to make sure. I don't see anything in there that seems applicable to this discussion, but perhaps it is just me. Could you highlight the portion of WP:REDFLAG that seems to be in play here so I can consider it more carefully? Let me recount the main points here with specific responses:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources

The National Post is a mainstream source, so that's covered.

• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended

Solomon is aligned with the deniers so it doesn't seem out of character for him to write such a piece, comparing him to Al Gore in terms of influence hardly seems embarrassing, I should think that being compared to Al Gore isn't particularly controversial in general, your personal position not withstanding, and the article in question doesn't seem to be against any positions Solomon has previously written regarding WMC. So I don't see any problem there.

• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons

I don't believe that arguing that WMC is influential runs counter to the prevailing views of the people contributing here, and I certainly doubt whether this entry will significantly alter mainstream assumptions in science, medicine, history, politics, etc. So, again, I don't really see any problem here.

Regardless of your personal opinion of Solomon he is a professional writer employed at a mainstream media outlet. His Op/Ed and even the blog entries on the Finanial Post section of the site are every bit as valid (for reference purposes) as, say, using references pulled from RealClimate would be (especially the anonymously written references). My comment is meant to apply within their respective areas of expertise, obviously. --GoRight (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This op-eds are not BLP-worthy sources by any stretch of the imagination. I get GoRight's point, but I think it strange he listed this on the BLP noticeboard which are normally reserved for BLP violation. We should error on the side of caution in BLPs. Cool Hand Luke 00:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad, if it is a bad. I posted them there in response to this suggestion [14]. After I had it up I remembered about the RFC's but I don't want to post it on both lest I be accused of WP:FORUMSHOP.

Even so, I did read the intro on WP:BLPN which opens with "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing Biographies of living people policy issues which require outside intervention." and my open item there seems to fall under that definition.

Please note that this latest edit is wholly the creation of editors other than myself and is a separate issue from the notice board issue in my mind. I am merely defending this item from deletion. Or trying to. --GoRight (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't doubt your good faith. I just happen to this the more alarming problems have occurred in BLPs on the other side of this issue. I'm glad to see that these biography's have gotten a lot more attention, and you've played an important part in that. Cool Hand Luke 02:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it worthwhile to to step back and take stock of the National Post and Lawrence Solomon's position there just to put this all in its proper perspective. To that end I would make the following points:

(1) The National Post is currently the 6th largest newspaper in Canada by circulation (List_of_the_largest_Canadian_newspapers_by_circulation). This certainly puts it in the category of a respected news source.

(2) Like all large newspapers, the National Post has a standing editorial staff (National_Post#Editors_in_chief) and professional columnists, of which Solomon is one.

(3) Even though they refer to them as "blogs", the blogs are primarily a vehicle for disseminating material from the professional staff there. On the main page of the NP Network Blogs ([15]), we find this description: "News, opinion and more - in real time -- The NP Network Blogs feeds the latest from National Post and Financial Post reporters and editors straight to you, wherever you want it."

(4) Solomon is a contributor to the "FP Comment Blog" (i.e. a professional columnist) which is where many of the references to his material are located. The editor of the "FP Comment Blog" is Terence Corcoran, so this isn't just a case of Solomon firing up WordPress when he gets the notion, the material goes through an editorial process unlike, say, the articles found at RealClimate many of which are written anonymously and are, in many cases, also opinion pieces. I make this last point for comparison purposes only, of course, since many of the people here consider the RealClimate sources to be of unassailable quality and reliability even though they, presumably, lack these same basic checks and balances.

Now from the perspective of WP:RS, we find the following related to using News Sources:

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

For the purpose of this discussion and the proposed summary of the piece by Solomon, I think that the National Post and Solomon meet the fundamental criteria of being a mainstream news source which exercises editorial oversight. In other words, material from the National Post satisfies the criteria specified in WP:RS for news organizations as far as I can tell.

From the perspective of WP:BLP, we find the following at (Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise):

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

As to the first highlighted point, clearly the Solomon piece goes directly to WMC's area of notability (i.e. climate change and his support of the so-called consensus view) as well as his activities here on Wikipedia. We have already established the National Post as meeting WP:RS, and since the Wikipedia histories themselves are the Primary Sources, Solomon's piece by definition is a Secondary Source. As for the rest I don't see how the proposed text comes close to violating any of them.

As to the second highlighted point, the proposed content is a direct reflection of the point made in the referenced article with the contentious material removed, is it not? That seems a fair way of saying that it is directly about the subject of the article (i.e. the actions of Mr. Connolley and his followers/compatriats and the effect those actions have on the quality of the material found on Wikipedia, in Solomon's opinion).

This only seems to leave the question of whether Solomon is a third-party in all of this. While it is true that Solomon uses his own personal experiences to illustrate for the reader how things operate here, the points made in his piece are discussing the culture he found when he arrived as an outsider ... in other words while he was a third party observer not a full-time participant or even a regular. To me this is basically what a third party writer is supposed to do when gathering detailed information about which they intend to write.

So based on this I obviously believe that Solomon should be considered a third party to the on-going actions and activities here, and he obviously has no intention of becoming a regular contributor ... thus leaving him in the third party category.

So what did I leave out of this from the perspective of WP:BLP and WP:RS? I don't want to be accused of cherry picking so speak up.  :) --GoRight (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice example of the Gish Gallop. No, the National Post is not, in general a reliable source. It's circulation is entirely irrelevant - the largest German newspaper is e.g. a crappy tabloid, and The Sun is prime among English language papers. As you quote: The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. I'm not aware of anybody who thinks the WMC is the second most influential person on the topic of GW - and that includes Solomon. The claim is obviously rhetorical hyperbole. As such, it is entirely irrelevant and has no place in this article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As I noted above, we have over 400 links to National Post pages. Are you saying they're all bad citations? How do we evaluate which major newspapers to quote and which not to quote? I'm not aware of any policy or guideline that would rule out the use of a major newspaper.

In this case, the newspaper is carrying the opinion asserted by a notable writer on the topic of global warmer. The scientific mainstream now considers the Earth to be experiencing global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the mainstream does not yet consider thoughtful criticism of this position to be "fringe science". Solomon, while not a scientist, is one of the most vocal proponents speaking and writing against the mainstream view. If Connelley's article is going to discuss his Wikipedia role, then it reasonable to include criticism of it. Including Solomon's view is not endorsing it nor are we presenting it as a fact; we are merely reporting what a prominent global warming critic says of Connelley and Wikipedia. As for whether the comment was intended as hyperbole, that's something our readers can decide for themselves, referring back to the actual linked article if they wish. Wikipedia itself has no opinion on anything. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you find "thoughtful criticism" criticism in what Solomon writes on any topic related with climate change, you are a much better searcher than I am. But that is somewhat irrelevant. Yes, we have guidelines on which newspapers to use and which not - see e.g. WP:RS: articles should be based on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - a requirement that, at least in the field of global warming, the NP has failed time and time again. What's more, the piece by Solomon is an op-ed, i.e. an opinion piece. And the opinion presented (if taken at face value) is absurd to a degree that even WP:FRINGE seems inadequate to describe it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment regarding the accuracy of the National Post is, sadly (as WMC himself would say, [16]), merely your opinion.  :) --GoRight (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We are reporting that a prominent figure in the debate on global warming has asserted that Connelley is also an important figure in the debate (#2 behind Gore). We also quote Hugo Chavez' criticism of George Bush in another article. In neither case do we pass these opinions off as facts. Chavez is not an expert on Iraq but we report his criticism because Chavez is a major world player. Maybe Chavez is right, maybe he's not. If Chavez or Bush seem to speak in hyperbole, we don't opine on the quality of their rhetoric -- we just leave their comments in quotes. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I very much doubt if he is a prominent figure in the global warming debate. He has written a book recently (based upon a series of articles). Has he done anything else that merits prominent? Are there a large number of secondary and tertiary sources that elevate him to this status (outside of descriptions of the book)? (nb: the article series (and the book) btw. has serious deficiencies in editorial oversight. See for instance [17]). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How does he compare in prominence to Christy, Singer, Ball, Pielke Jr+Sr., Lomborg, .... (or just the people that he describes in his book?)? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How does it matter? These are all scientists. LS is a columnist. Scientists comment on science. Columnists comment on politics. Your comparison is thus flawed because it is apples and oranges. BTW, is this the first time you have ever heard of LS? Were you blissfully unaware of his existence until he was referenced here? --GoRight (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Columnist or scientists doesn't really matter. Has he or hasn't he had an impact that is large enough on the global warming debate that he can be attributed the label "prominent"? I guess not. And yes - i was blissfully ignorant of his existance before people attempted to use his "denier"-biographies to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. And frankly i haven't heard anything other than this about him. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, then. So you HAD heard of him prior to this thread and precisely for the work that is applicable here.

Yes, i had heard of him before this thread. But that doesn't make him notable, prominent or anything else. All it shows is that Wikipedia has Canadian members, who were eager to use his articles on the list. Btw. all those articles were dismissed.... because of poor editorial oversight and directly wrong statements. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the "impact" part of your statement it is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. As a journalist he is not expected to have an "impact", he is merely expected to report on it ... which he does as a professional employed by a prominent national Canadian news outlet. When we quote writers from say, The New York Times or the Washington Post, we don't question whether the authors of those pieces have "impacted" the debate or not because it is merely their reporting on the people who DO have an impact that matters.

Of course his impact matters, thats what this discussion is about. Has he had any significant impact in the global warming debate? (hint: no). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You obviously misunderstand the role of journalists with respect to the topics that they cover. Perhaps a brief review of some other citations will make this more understandable to you. Have any of the following had an impact on GW?

• Sharon Begley? [18]
• Dan Harris? [19]
• Felicia Biberica? [20]
• Elizabeth Stuart? [21]
• Nils Kongshaug? [22]
• George Monbiot? [23]
• Michael Shermer? [24]
• Roger Ebert? [25]

None of these people has "impacted" the debate on GW in the sense that you mean it, yet they are all viewed as appropriate references on GW pages. Your position here is utter nonsense. --GoRight (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't deny that he has written extensively on the subject of GW Deniers, his record is there for all to see, and this makes him particularly relevant to the specific criticisms that he raises, namely the methods used by opponents of the GW Deniers to smear and misrepresent them. Thank you for making my point. --GoRight (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

He has written articles - yes. He's written a book - yes. Does that make his opinion notable in this context? no. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not just any articles, and not just any book, but both specifically about the positions taken by prominent skeptics. As such he has a detailed perspective from which to base his opinion, and it is well founded. Can you site any professional journalist who is more well known for covering the skeptics in detail than LS? --GoRight (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

He isn't very good at it, and the editorial oversight of his Op-Ed's can't be good either. At least 10% (Solanki, Weiss, Shaviv) of the people he covered, have considered his "articles" to be wrong about them (publicly) - In fact a very large percentage of the people he covered aren't deniers or could even be called remotely sceptic (Tol, Landsea, Kirkby, Wunsch, Nordhaus, Von Storch, Salter, Bromwitch, Schwartz).... (hint: anyone with half an interest in the global warming debate - knows at least a large percentage of these - and they aren't sceptics - sorry).

And of course, you are still ignoring the most obvious thing: What he writes in this particular Op-Ed (the one you are pushing) is wrong - its so blatantly wrong that its laughable. Do you really think Connolley is the 2nd most important person? Really? Truly? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

First, allow me to quote from the opening sentence of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (Emphasis mine) By making such a judgment and using it as criteria to affect the content of the article, you are committing WP:OR.

Second, I seriously doubt that LS considers this to be literally true, as you are trying to imply. This is evidenced by his qualification of the statement with a "may be". This is merely a succinct way of making the point that WMC gains a great deal of influence through his activities here at Wikipedia. That is the main point and thrust of the article, and on that point yes, I truly believe that it is true. A great many lay people actually do rely on Wikipedia for at least gaining a basic understanding of the topics that they read here. GW should be no exception in that respect. And to the extent that Wikiepdia influences these people's opinions and the way in which they vote in the political sphere, which again is what LS is discussing (as opposed to the science), then yes WMCs contributions for his side of the debate as well as his maligning of his opponents in their BLPs (as LS alleges) clearly could have a significant impact. Your mileage may vary on the assumed impact of Wikipedia in this context. --GoRight (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats correct. WP:V is about verifiability. But WP do not regard everything printed as having equal value, and especially not on a biography, we look at the level of editorial oversight and the general reliability of the source on a particular subject. (and sorry that is not WP:OR, but part of regular editing, and the whole idea behind WP:WEIGHT). If a source makes outrageous statements, then we find other secondary or tertiary sources to back that statement - if we can't then we leave it alone, thats the whole idea of WP:REDFLAG. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Stephan Schulz's concern about the general reliability of the National Post beyond this particular link; I have raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#National Post links --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption by GoRight. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on GoRight's behavior at Wikipedia:Requests for Comments/GoRight. Raul654 (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, it's not that the National Post isn't a reliable source in principle — it's that op/eds are opinion pieces, not objective or striving-for-objective articles. No newspaper's opinions or editorials should ever be cited on Wikipedia, no matter how reliable the paper generally is or isn't, as a source for anything more than a statement of the newspaper's or the credited columnist's opinions. But that's because it's an opinion piece, not because said opinion is or isn't published in the National Post. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

Can this person's nationality please be added to the lead sentence if its known? Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I laugh not because of your request, but because we have WMC available to merely ask yet this won't be sufficient because it fails to be WP:RS. I just find it ironic, that's all.  :-) I suppose if it is not already there he could simply add it to his personal blog and we could reference that. WP:SPS are allowed from the subject themselves as long as they are not contentious. I promise, I won't argue that WMC doesn't properly know his own nationality!  :-) --GoRight (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It really should be added to the lead sentence. Is he British, English, or neither? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Most likely both, but I don't have a reliable source on that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph item 3 (both 1 and 2). It shouldn't be added to the opening paragraph and as for British vs. English, as you can see, that's a nebulous issue. For that matter, he may have been born outside Great Britain and/or hold citizenship in multiple countries. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. It should be added per the MOS you referenced above??--70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a UK passport, if that helps. Like everyone else in this country, I don't know if my nationality is UK, British or English. JzG probably knows stuff like that. I only came here by chance, BTW - by policy I don't watch this - put Q's on my talk page if you want answers William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipropaganda

Obligatory talk page comment. CBS News is WP:RS and WP:V. The edit properly attributes the comments to Lawrence Solomon per WP:BLP and WP:RS. As such this is hardly WP:VANDAL. --GoRight (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Users who call such edits "vandalism" are misusing the term.

That said, I think this might be a little bit too much (that is, undue weight). Cool Hand Luke 02:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I was reverting as vandalism, because the user was clearly making an personal attack on WMC, i also noted this on his talk-page. Try looking over the users contributions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for future reference, then, the proper rationale would be WP:NPA not WP:VANDAL. They aren't the same thing. --GoRight (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, i'm sorry. When a disruptive editor makes such changes in such a short timeperiod - with no edits outside of this (SPA) - then the revert as vandalism is correctly placed. Just as when someone places a link on several pages gets reverted at vandalism if he is linkspamming.

On the other hand, your revert seems rather silly considering the text. Did you at all look at the content, before reverting? Or where you (as i suspect) just trying to make a point? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to suspect, I was most definitely making a point. The point was that the article was well sourced and properly attributed and as such, it was not WP:VANDAL. I am essentially a WP:SPA so that argument obviously carries no weight with me. There is no policy that requires editors to be broadly-based. And what, in this instance, constitutes a "short time period"? What time interval are you referring to? --GoRight (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In the future, might I suggest a polite word to Kim D. Peterson on his/her talk page? Regardless of one's opinion of global warming or William Connolley, reinserting a massive block of character-assassinating text doesn't strike me as an improvement to Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that deleting properly sourced and attributed material and falsely labeling it WP:VANDAL likewise does not improve Wikipedia. --GoRight (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs make a right? I didn't say that Kim was correct to label the edits as vandalism, but surely leaving a message for Kim asking him/her not to use those sorts of edit summaries would have been better for the project than restoring a harmful addition to the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are laboring under the mistaken impression that I consider the addition harmful to the article. I do not. Ergo, I do not consider my action to be "wrong". You are free to disagree. --GoRight (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't realize that you were unfamiliar with WP:WEIGHT. Given your fondness for reminding other editors of policy shortcut links, you may find it useful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I am familiar with WP:WEIGHT. The lack of any reference to the material in question is clearly a WP:WEIGHT problem. This is actually an argument for inclusion, not against it. --GoRight (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting). Okay, GoRight—I'm not biting any more. If you don't see how dedicating a third of the article to one op-ed piece – and framing that material with highly-credulous and inflammatory prose and section headers – is neither compatible with our policies nor serving to improve the quality of the article and this encyclopedia, there is little that I can do to explain it to you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is fine. We can agree to disagree without prejudice either way. Suffice it to say that I disagree with your interpretation of the policies as noted above. One point of clarification, however, I never suggested that the original addition had to be, or even should, be kept in its current form. My statement was specifically that "the lack of any reference to the material in question is clearly a WP:WEIGHT problem," and I stand by that statement. I have not attempted to re-add the material or any reference thereto because it is evident that the consensus of involved editors here would be against such an addition and I accept that consensus. That does not mean that I agree with it. --GoRight (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Cards on the table GoRight — do you think that the text you added to the article – and for which you took responsibility, by adding it in your own name – was compliant with Wikipedia's content policies, and improved the article by its presence in the form in which you added it? My entire point here is that even if you disagreed with the edit summary used by Kim, that wasn't an excuse to carry out an action that you knew was harmful.

Honestly—if you wanted the reference in the article, you could have sent a polite note to Kim urging him/her to be cautious in the use of the word vandalism, and then suggested the addition of a small references on this talk page. Heck, you could even have been bold and added a neutrally-worded one-liner to the existing article section on 'Wikipedia activity', along with a rationale on this talk page. Instead, you restored an obviously badly-biased screed that you almost surely knew would be deleted again, and completely shot yourself in the foot. Your belief that Kim's edit violated WP:WEIGHT in one way doesn't justify your decision to violate it in the other. We're right back to two wrongs make a right—and they don't. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My cards are already on the table, and have been from the very beginning. I could have done a lot of things here. What I chose to do was enforce wikipedia policy by restoring material which was incorrectly deleted as WP:VANDAL. Given my recent history with this particular WP:BLP and the RfC on me I am understandably reluctant to suggest content changes on this particular topic, so I preferred to allow the author of the addition to defend his own work. My actions here should not be interpreted as being anything more than restoring material that I felt was incorrectly removed as being WP:VANDAL, a position which was born out by a subsequent statement by the editor who had removed the material as such. --GoRight (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a pointless example of WP:PROCESSWONKING. When you restore something, you take responsibility for the text. The correctness of the reason for the deletion is pointless. I can see someone auto-reverting a large-scale editing spree from a sock of a banned user without checking each individual contribution, but I don't think that applies here. We talk about a single edit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I loath when banned edits are unwound; it makes me cringe. Especially in BLPs. We are not robots, and an invalid reason for removing text is not a mandate to restore it. You're entirely right here. It would have been better to (1) point out on the talk page that it's not technically vandalism (which it is not), or at the very least (2) rewrite it in a way more compatible with our policies. Cool Hand Luke 00:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your perspective and that of the other editors. It should be no secret that in my opinion a discussion of the subject matter at hand is appropriate in this WP:BLP. I recognize that based on the response to this addition that the consensus will be against me, so I am not even arguing that the material should be restored at this point. I am only explaining my rationale for my actions. You and the other editors are free to disagree with that rationale. I suspect 100% agreement on all such matters would be an unrealistic goal. --GoRight (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

And POV language. The "wikipropganda" section is a total disgrace. opinion is cited as fact, inflammatory language used by the source is used to inform heading titles. Dubious claims are printed uncritically, and WP:RECENT (essay, I know) is disregarded in reporting on a tempest in a tea pot. In this revision, fully 1/3 of the page content is devoted to a hodgepodge of ridiculous accusations made by someone with an axe to grind. The current revision of this article is a shame. Protonk (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, actually. When examining it I didn't find anything that could be salvaged. We need a secondary source for this claim—encyclopedia biographies should not be platforms for OpEds. Cool Hand Luke 03:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The you are really going to like this one: Wikipropaganda. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, lord. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh good god. A whole article cited from a primary source OpEd attack on a living person that doesn't assert the term is in widespread use? I'm speedying that. Cool Hand Luke 03:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Raul deleted and blocked. Good. Cool Hand Luke 03:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

AWWWWW! I had an AfD ready and everything!  :) Protonk (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I was searching for James Connelley and came across this article. It is not clear why this article is even in here? What is the notability here? Should an adminstrator tag this for deletion? Paul Spanovich (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

See the five previous failed deletion debates. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another brand new user with a surprisingly good grasp of Wiki terminology. I don't think I'll bother with the welcome message, since it appears no introduction is required :-).JQ (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a remarkable coincidence. You managed to stumble across and edit Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change – a page which doesn't mention William Connolley anywhere, and has no wikilinks to or from this article – while looking for James Connelley? In any event, you may find our article on James Connolly useful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Does...

...this dude have any mention or notoriety in the mainstream media apart from his wikipeodia persona (which might be a false one, like Essjay)? AndreaTrue77 (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, the article lists a number of peer-reviewed publications.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Article needs to be substantially shortened or deleted

Even if you are FOR AGW, this guy is just famous for blogging and for wiki-editing. And for sort of flitting around the net a lot. He's nothing compared to Hansen, Mann, Schneider. Really even compared to an average AGW scientist, Connolley is less. He's a non tenure track, non-PI type of also-ran. Not a force in the science. This page is a vanity page and is self-referential. (No hard feelings, Bill.)TCO (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh...and what is a "speedy keep"? Is there a "speedy delete"? Surely the issue is being discussed and there will be no speedy delete, so why the need for a "speedy keep"? Surely the subject should be discussed.

Bottom line is that Connolley is "famous" for commenting on the net. Even his blog is/was nothing special. And he's an admin on wiki. His papers are nothing special. He has not founded a school of thought. Is not a "player" in any sense in terms of getting grants. That leaves us with the self-referential wiki famousness.TCO (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been a number of AfD's, all of which failed. Unless you have a significant new and more substantial argument than those forwarded in the previous ones, I suggest you don't waste our time. What does this have to do with being "FOR AGW" (I suspect very few are - I'm certainly not, although I recognize the scientific consensus that supports anthropogenic drivers as the main cause of current climate change)? The subject is covered by multiple independent reliable sources, and is notable by Wikipedia standards. The article is below the recommended max lengths, and all information seems to be reasonably sources, so why shorten it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

By "FOR AGW", I meant something like "a public debater that AGW is happening". I agree on the deletion attempts having occurred. Would be a reasonable compromise to have a very short article. This guy is NOT A HEAVY HITTER as a scientist. Lately, he's actually most famous for being an aggressive editor/admin warrior on Wiki AGW topics.TCO (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That gloss of your opening salvo doesn't make any sense in that context, frankly. (I'm assuming that "FOR" here means "for", and isn't another TLA, given the USE OF ALL-CAPS SHOUTING elsewhere in the comment.) Are you perhaps seeking to imply that one's assessment of WC's notability correlates with whether one is a "climate-change believer" or not? What do you suggest we "shorten"? His standing for public office? His mentions in the New Yorker, or Nature? His journal publications? Your tone is not really indicative of someone looking for a meaningful compromise, and nor have you advanced any argument as to why such compromise is needed. If you're not just here to supply emptily slighting comments and negative "editor review", I suggest a tighter focus on the actual content of the article. Alai (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not that hard to understand. Even FOR public advocates of AGW, WC is notable only for being a web-based advocate. Within climate science, he is not a heavy hitter. Is not pulling down grants, fathering new insights, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 16:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)