Talk:Fred Singer

Is this article NPOV?

I have my doubts. All the information on this page seems to be factually correct, but there's a lot of bias in the information that is presented, and the way in which it is presented. Unfortunately I see that a lot of wikipedia.

We're looking here at a man who has had a very succesful carreer lasting more than 50 years. What is the remark about his 1960 (!) article that Phobos might be artificial doing in the introduction of the page? This is hardly a highlight of his carreer. In fact it's so minor it hardly registers. Plus it's ages ago. So why is it there? I can not escape the impression that it was only given such a central place because it's so blatantly wrong. In other words: To discredit him.

My second point about this article not being NPOV. The part about the Kuwait oil fires debate. Clearly Singers predictions were somewhat off here. But so were Sagan's predictions. In fact I'd say Sagan, who predicted global disaster, was much further from the truth than Singer, who predicted no harmful effects. Nevertheless this paragraph is written such that it looks like Singer was wrong. And secondly, what is that paragraph doing there at all? Again this is a very minor event in his very long carreer. It seems again that this was only added to discredit Singer.

It's justified to cover the failures and wrong predictions a scientists makes. But not to the exclusion of everything else. That's biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.224.115 (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotes section

somebody create a Quotes section. Include this: "Both air and water pollution have been virtually eliminated in developed nations." taken from here: http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/singer_interview.htm

(William M. Connolley 11:21, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)) Store this here for now while I think about adding it to article:

His last known science-type (as opposed to comment-type) paper is: RE-ANALYSIS OF THE NUCLEAR WINTER PHENOMENON, SINGER SF, METEOROLOGY AND ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, 38 (4): 228-239 1988. It has never been cited.

http://www.sepp.org/bios/singer/cvsfs.html Doesn't have a list, sadly.

Anyone know a more recent one?

Hi, not sure about it, but Web of Science gives back lots of newer articles (didn't check if they are scientific):

• Singer, SF Oil depletionOIL GAS J 101 (31): 10-+ AUG 11 2003
• Singer, SF Science editor bias on climate change?SCIENCE 301 (5633): 595-595 AUG 1 2003
• Singer, SF Under the sunSCIENTIST 17 (12): 15-15 JUN 16 2003
• Singer, SF Origin of phobos and deimos: Why we need samples.METEORIT PLANET SCI 37 (7): A131-A131 Suppl. S JUL 2002
• Singer, SF Energy futuresTECHNOL REV 105 (3): 14-14 APR 2002
• Singer, SF Bets off for oil peakGEOTIMES 47 (7): 4-4 JUL 2002
• Singer, SF Global warming: An insignificant trend?SCIENCE 292 (5519): 1063-1063 MAY 11 2001
• Singer, SF Difficulty in reconciling global-warming dataNATURE 409 (6818): 281-281 JAN 18 2001
• Singer, SF To Mars by way of its moonsSCI AM 282 (3): 56-57 MAR 2000

Singer, SF, Talvacchia, J, Watson, N Nontoric Hamiltonian circle actions on four-dimensional symplectic orbifolds P AM MATH SOC 127 (3): 937-940 MAR 1999

--till we *) 13:02, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC) (with reformatting by WMC)

(William M. Connolley 18:14, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)) I don't think the last one is the same SFS though! Not his style. I think we're using the same source. I found the ones you mention above, but, ha ha, they don't count, because they are all comment-type not science type (I think): letters to the editor and the like. I looked at a few of them on WoS and they didn't have abstracts online: which is usually a sign of a comment piece.

Reverted deletion of of "The Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy" as being founded by the unitarian church. This is interesting information which provides insight to the reader as to the foudation's beliefs and there is seemingly no need to delete it.--Deglr6328 02:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1. It's not the Unitarian but the Unification Church.
2. The connection is described in more detail at Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy.
3. No reason to emphasize founding or funding sources unless it's part of someone's argument that these sources have affected the institute's objectivity. --Uncle Ed 19:58, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My mistake about the Unitarian/Unification mixup. I will not re-revert the changes, as an edit war on such a trivial matter would indeed be preposterous. I will say, however, that I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the only reason to mention the founders of the organization must have some devious ulterior motive. If the organization's objectivity is not in question to begin with, perhaps you can help me understand why there would be any protest at all to simply stating its founder's name? Anyway, enough of this trifling. Lastly, and I absolutely do not wish to condescend here, as you clearly have made many more edits to wikipedia than I have; but may I humbly suggest that, in future, you give extra thought to making edits truly NPOV. Some of your past edits have left me feeling....shall we say...concerned... about bias rearing its ugly head. IMHO, wikipedia should never be about attempting to influence a reader's views on a subject but instead, only about presenting factual information in the most dispassionate manner possible.--Deglr6328 06:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An old quote

(William M. Connolley 08:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Singer said:

I am persuaded to think that any climate change is bad because of the investments and adaptations that have been made by human beings and all of the things that support human existence upon this globe. Even minor fluctuations of climate could change the distribution of fish, ... upset agriculture,...and inundate costal cities...... Such changes could occur at a faster rate perhaps than human society can evolve. S. Fred Singer, ed. 1975. The Changing Global Environment pp5.

Is it neutral?

Viriditas asked me to check this article. I found one particularly difficult sentence:

Singer claims that he speaks for a "majority" of scientists, although no scientists have endorsed his claim of speaking for them.

In context, this reads like an attempt to discredit Singer. How can we fix this? --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 13:12, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 13:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Well I added that. FS's claim (does he actually make that claim? You added it. Can you source it? If not, perhaps the solution is to remove the claim) is absurd and cannot stand unqualified.

Okay, but when did he ever claim to "speak for a majority of scientists"? And how come you're only in the minority?

(William M. Connolley 17:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Ed, you insserted this fatous claim [1] please don't expect me to defend it. Presumably, you made it up off the top of your head? If so, it would be best to simply remove it.

Well, fer cryin' out loud, doc, why would you ever accept ME as a source for anything? You KNOW better ;-) --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 17:42, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

See Amy Ridenour

(William M. Connolley 19:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)) OK, I'll strip it out of FS then.

Ted Koppel of Nightline

Certainly, there was nothing academic about Gore's attacks on Singer, who has been a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, deputy assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and chief scientist of UPS Department of Transportation. Singer has also had three of his books published by The Unification Church, headed by the Rev. Moon, proprietor of the Washington Times, which, coincidentally or not, uncovered much of the Whitewater scandal. "You can see where this is going," Koppel commented, "If you like Dr. Singer's views on the environment you mention his most impressive credentials. If you don't, it's Fred Singer and the Rev. Sung Myung Moon and the Unification Church." What is really significant is whose scientific hypotheses have emerged intact from Koppel's acid bath of truth. For example, Singer and Dr. Carl Sagan, a Gore ally, had entirely different predictions about the consequences of oil fires after the Persian Gulf War. "The record shows in this instance Dr. Sagan was wrong and Dr. Singer was right," Koppel said, "Predictions are a hazardous business" - especially when you rely, as Sagan did, exclusively on computer models. [2]

People criticize Singer and Sagan using two different standards. Personally, I think it's prejudice.

What's the best way to mention that Carl Sagan's nuclear winter scenario for the Kumaiti oil fires turned out to be mistaken? --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 20:54, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

• An interesting article is The cows missed the movie by Debra J. Saunders

Singer's views on the atmosphere

We should not merely call his POV "contrarian" but should say specifically what he disputes and why he disputes it. Let's mention his oft-repeated assertion that warming predicted by IPCC models are contradicted by satellite readings.

I think it's especially unfair to emphasize Carl Sagan's advocacy of the scientific method while trashing Fred Singer for actually using it.

Sagan and Singer both made a prediction about Kuwaiti oil fire smoke in 1991, based on their competing atmospheric theories. One was right, the other wrong. Shouldn't we expect the one who was wrong to change his theory afterwards, based on the scientific principle that every hypothesis contradicted by observation must be discarded? --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 21:13, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You need to find a source for the predictions then I guess. What exactly did Sagan predict? And Singer?

(William M. Connolley 22:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Re Singers views on the atmos: I'm not really sure exactly what they are. Roger Pielke (here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.html#000304) rather implausibly attempts to say that Singer isn't too far from the consensus based on this: http://www.sepp.org/scirsrch/EOS1999.html but I think thats a bit implausible.

Double standards

So how is this "weasel words" concept supposed to work that has been touted on the other pages? Apparently the phrase "skeptics say" is grounds for removal of an entire section, yet right here a large section of this page is "environmentalists say", followed by a collection of opinionated statements. Apparently it's only a "weasel word" if it starts with "skeptics say", and not when it starts with "environmentalists say"? — Cortonin | Talk 23:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)) As I understand it (and as I apply it), if you find something weaselly, you're allowed to object/remove it, and whoever wants it in is then obliged to find references.

Okay then, I removed the section I mentioned. Three of them are displaced ad hominems, and one of them has two links, one of which provides no support for the statement, and one of which says that Singer claims he has not received oil industry money (and alludes to a document which shows otherwise, but does not specify what document or where it can be found). — Cortonin | Talk 03:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I readded that section, but removed one statement and removed one link, but kept the other (quote: "ExxonMobil has become a major funder of the most visible 'greenhouse skeptics', [...] including S. Fred Singer [...]"). And no, it is not important that Singer claims the opposite. The other points are o.k. and backed up (see talk above by WMC). If someone can show a counter-example then this is of course something different. -- mkrohn 18:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Now hold on a second here. First, you added two websites. The first one says:

According to ExxonMobil documents, the company gave a 1998 grant of $10,000 to Singer's institute, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). It gave another $65,000 to the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Fairfax, Virginia which promotes Singer's work.

and

In his letter to The Washington Post, Singer wrote: "My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil."

In 1998, ExxonMobil gave $135,000 to the Hoover Institution -- the same year Singer published an article in the institution's publication, The Hoover Digest.

These are the only two examples give of "financial ties to oil". The first one suffers from a serious problem in that this 1998 ExxonMobil document doesn't seem to exist. I looked for it, and couldn't find it. The only reference to it is on this commentary blog, and other similar blogs which reference it. If you can locate that document, THEN we have a direct example. But if Exxon makes no note of having given money to Singer, Singer says he hasn't received money from Exxon, and no documentation exists that any money changed hands, then it's simply an unfounded allegation. It should perhaps more accurately say, "kwikpower has accused Singer of receiving funding from Exxon in 1998, but no documentation has been found of this transaction, and Singer says he has received no funding from Exxon." — Cortonin | Talk 22:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The second one suffers from serious misrepresentation. The Hoover Institute is simply a public policy institute at Stanford. The Wesson Fellow is simply a position there, where as being a Fellow typically goes, the person would get paid anyway by the institute, but being a fellow is considered an honor, and is sometimes accompanied by a small payraise. As is traditional for Fellows, the Robert Wesson Fellow was probably established by an endowment left by someone, and that someone was probably Robert Wesson. Whether or not ExxonMobile donated $135,000 to the same institute where Singer happened to be working at the time is completely irrelevant, and shows no financial contribution from Exxon to Singer. For them to imply that it does show a financial connection is a bit "shady". People need to start debating these issues on the issues, rather than resorting to such disreputable character assassination attempts. — Cortonin | Talk 22:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

In addition, you added, "he is a retired scientist who has produced no new research since the mid-1970s." This is of course, wrong. Do a literature search before putting up statements like that, especially if they have no documentation (and perhaps even if they do, since documentation is pretty shady sometimes on this topic, and it's best to go to the original source). The first few examples:

• Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation, Douglass DH, Pearson BD, Singer SF, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (13): Art. No. L13208 JUL 9 2004
• Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence, Douglass DH, Pearson BD, Singer SF, Knappenberger PC, Michaels PJ, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (13): Art. No. L13207 JUL 9 2004

And this is the same SF Singer, unless of course there are two SF Singers working for SEPP. You never know when clones will pop up. — Cortonin | Talk 22:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

About the money: there are dozens of links where different organizations say that Fred Singer received money from Exxon, e.g., [3] ("Another highly visible skeptic, S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO."), [4], [5]. And more important: it is not necessary that someone proves that money was given to F. Singer. This is not the task of an encyclopedia project. Of course references have to be given that others claim that Singer received money from Exxon.

--mkrohn 19:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* It makes the whole environmental movement look like a bunch of crazed conspiracy theorists when you add things like that. Do you think Singer says what he does so that he can get money from Exxon? Which is the cause and effect here? Yeah, maybe there are some people out there claiming this, but are they the mainstream of environmentalism? I certainly hope not, for the sake of environmentalism. Perhaps you could reword it so that it doesn't sound like all environmentalists think like that, and perhaps you could also find specific attributions for people promoting those other two criticisms as well. — Cortonin | Talk 04:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

So $10,000 7 years ago is "major funding"? Check how far that goes in a business budget, look at Exxon's annual report on donations and some other organization budgets for comparison. For that matter, compare Exxon's lists to your source. (SEWilco 04:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC))

Temporary injunction

Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:

Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] by William M. Connolley [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case.

--mav 22:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Last article?

Actaully Singer has something in ?GRL? 2004/5 I forget - I think he was last author William M. Connolley 22:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Climatologists

Is Singer actually a climatologist? He is currently in Category:Climatologists, but does his PhD in Physics make him one? Or is the category more arbitrary? Hardern 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see a case for changing that category tag. I want to think about it a bit and look over his work.Birdbrainscan 01:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobacco section

Seems kind of odd that this is in the article. Is this a well known controversy surrounding him ("The Tobacco Remarks") or is it put in here to create controversy? Seems almost like a personal attack. The machine512 15:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What should an atmospheric physicist know about the medical effects of tobacco anyway? The machine512 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

another attack statement

The group is also skeptical about the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, between smoking and lung cancer, and between ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer.

Bias bias bias. The machine512 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether it is a biased but whether it is verifiable and notable. Someone should look for support on this. If however, we can find reliable sources that say this it would be fine to have in the article. JoshuaZ 17:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There, I think that's cited enough now. JoshuaZ 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the citations. The article that he wrote seems to be about CFCs and an increase in UV radiation. It does mention skin cancer, but I am not seeing where he states UV doesn't cause skin cancer. Maybe rewording is needed, such as CFCs and UV radiation? Thanks. The machine512 17:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He says in http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/ozone/ozscsst.html that "Each of these steps is controversial, has not been sufficiently substantiated, and may even be incorrect" when referring to "Exposure to more solar UV radiation leads to a huge increase in skin cancer rates and hundreds of thousands of additional deaths" and expands on this in the section "The Skin Cancer Scare" JoshuaZ 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see it now from this statement "And indeed, recent laborato- ry experiments have now established that melanoma rates are not likely to depend on exposure to solar UV-B radiation."

Another thing that concerns me is that it says the group IS skeptical of these things. Note this was in the 1970s when much research was going on to prove these things, these ideas weren't fact back then and reletively new. Should we change it to say "was", or do they still hold the view? The machine512 17:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit:It seems the article was written in 1994, not 1970s. The machine512 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So any remaing issues with that sentence? JoshuaZ 18:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless they still hold the view we should use past tense. The machine512 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They are up on their website and there isn't any indication that they don't so I'm not sure what the issue is. In any event, it would probably be easy to find more recent examples. JoshuaZ 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, well just to be safe I think it should be past tense, there is no harm in that (agreed?), unless you can find something that states otherwise. Thanks again for the citations. The machine512 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ just said their website still has that view. Should past tense be used for "The Catholic Church leader was its Pope" if the Church's web site still states that the Pope is its leader? (SEWilco 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

If no one had heard from the Pope or the Church in ten years, then yes you could say "was", because "was" is stating the truth (at some point known, currently unknown). Would you make the claim that the Mars Global Surveyor is still in orbit around Mars?

If their website states that they currently have that view, and not an article from ten or more years ago, then by all means go for it. Otherwise it is best to be safe and not POV. The machine512 10:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

New book coauthored by Singer

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (Paperback) 
by Dennis T. Avery (Author), S. Fred Singer (Author) 
Paperback: 276 pages 
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (February 1, 2007) 
Language: English 
ISBN-10: 0742551172 
ISBN-13: 978-0742551176 

The Monbiot stuff concerns me

We are talking about some pretty serious stuff in this article, and this source seems pretty questionable to me for the following reasons: first, it is an editorial, not news reporting, by someone obviously hostile to Singer. And the connection here seems quite tenuous... someone else claims something (what?) and this hostile editorialist claims that it is from Singer (somehow), and that there is no source (but where did Singer make the claim, what did he claim, has he clarified the source elsewhere), etc.

I have left it in for now, trying to soften it to be more careful, but there should be more attention given to this. I have emailed Singer to ask for more information if he has any.--Jimbo Wales 08:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Its properly published in a reputable newspaper (do you mean this [16]? Its not an editorial). What more do you want? Why mail only Singer and not Monbiot too? William M. Connolley 10:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Funding Sources

I am all for telling the whole story. However, I note that the additions by Raymond Arritt introduce an odd inconsistency, perhaps even a contradiction, into the article. "While funds were not directed specifically in his name, publicly available documents show that Singer's non-profit corporation SEPP received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including in 1998 and 2000.[19] SEPP itself does not disclose its funding sources." The latter sentence was added by RA in the body of the article and in the footnote. The first sentence, however, mentions publicly available documents. What are these publicly available documents? Whose are they? And where can they be found? If they exist, I couldn't find any data from them on the ExxonSecrets website. If they exist, they need to be explicitly cited, not vaguely asserted. If this can't be done, perhaps mention of them should be removed. If they are actually on the ExxonSecrets site, please point them out to me. If the documents are SEPP's, this would seem to contradict RA's addition. Are they Exxon-Mobil's? If so, this should be stated explicitly and information on how to get them provided. Let's get the whole story so it can be told. Anybody know anything about these documents? Geoffrey Allan Plauche 00:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The information is from ExxonMobil's annual reports for those years, which are not available on the web but could be cited if necessary. Second-hand sources are available on the web here and here; the latter includes some comments by Singer. The funding stuff is not that big a deal, and frankly I don't think it's Singer's primary motivation (though I wouldn't put my personal opinion in the article). I'd be satisfied merely with stating there have been questions raised about funding, but since Singer/SEPP doesn't provide any info on his funding we can never know either way. Raymond Arritt 00:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think his partial source of funding is also the source of his motivation either. I've had environmentalists cite the ExxonSecrets website at me regarding some skeptic or other (Michaels, Cato, for example) as if this does serve by itself to invalidate their views. A logical fallacy if I've ever seen one. So far I have always found that ExxonSecrets fails to provide any specific details. (See the Cato article as an example. ExxonSecrets is cited to support the true claim that Cato receives some corporate funding, but it fails to mention the amount or proportion which, during a significant period, was only 2%.) While I agree that the source of one's founding can corrupt one's scientific practice (be it a corporate, government, or other source), I think more often the funding is given in the first place because of the scientist's pre-existing views or his research proposal are found to be attractive. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 01:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

These minor amounts of money of such tenous areas is just ad hominem. Does the Hansen site talk about the 250,000 he got from Teresa Kerry's foundation? And what about the huge amounts of government funding, that dwarf private industry funded work? And regardless, Singer is the real deal. A pioneer in space science. Chipping away at him is the act of little men.

ExxonSecrets is run by Greenpeace who are not exactly an unbiased source. If a more credible source cannot be found I object to the ad hominem style attack on Singer. Consider the fact that Ted Turner's Turner Foundation has been a major contributor to Greenpeace, and considering that Ted Turner is investing in Solar Power he has a vested interest in promoting the global warming agenda and discrediting any one associated with Big Oil. --71.79.70.16 00:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And on a separate but related point, this is clearly unfounded as the statement itself acknowledges: "Writing for The Guardian, George Monbiot claimed that in 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Philip Morris to vice-president Ellen Merlo stating: 'As you know, we have been working with Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ...'[27], although this communication does not prove that Singer accepted funds from the tobacco industry." Here too, if we cannot provide definitive references I object to this being in the article. --71.79.70.16 00:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Having read the Wiki rules on the biographies of living persons, I find "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space." This technically implies that until valid sources for the section on potential conflicts of interest can be found not only should that section be removed, but this discussion of that should should also. Given this I am going to take the bold action of removing that section from the article along with the questionable references. --71.79.70.16 01:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad reference

Reference number 26, purporting to show that Singer received funds from oil companies in 1998 and 2000, does not. Rather, it simply states that he received funds 20 years ago. I imagine there may be some truth to the 1998/2000 claim, but this reference does not provide it! Can anyone find an appropriate reference? Otherwise, I think the statement should be removed... 65.183.135.166 04:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh... I guess this is what was complained about in the last note, above. Still, it remains unresolved since May, at least! 65.183.135.166 04:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The conflict of interest charge

I believe this section suffers from poor sourcing and WP:WEIGHT issues, and is inappropriate for a BLP. I removed it, but others have added it back, so I've asked for input on WP:BLP/N. ATren 01:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. --GoRight 02:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added some additional sourcing, from Newsweek. MastCell ^Talk 23:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that we have a Newsweek-sourced allegation, there is no need for Exxonsecrets-sourced material, so I've removed that. ATren 02:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am revising my conditional agreement on the Monbiot piece on WP:BLP/N since I am not being allowed to characterize Monbiot's views and motives for making his criticism. As for the Newsweek piece I have never agreed that this is consistent with a charge of conflict of interest. --GoRight 01:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reconsidered my position regarding the Newsweek and Monbiot pieces. As long as they are not labeled as being conflict of interest charges I see no need for an independent section for these quotes anymore. I have moved them each into the sections to which they apply (i.e. GW and Tobacco) and created a subsection in each area to clearly delineate his work from the criticisms of his critics. Hopefully this won't be found to be objectionable since both quotes remain in the article. --GoRight 02:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "Response from critics" section. Quite apart from its inaccuracy (Newsweek, for example, is a respected news magazine with no discernible partisan agenda, and the piece is not a "criticism" of Fred Singer), separate "criticism" sections are strongly deprecated by policy - see Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure, and Wikipedia:Criticism, for example. This information should be worked into the body of the article - I agree there - but not in segregated "Response from critics" sections. I've also removed a number of words to avoid. MastCell ^Talk 06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK I looked through the WP references. "Strongly deprecated" is a but "strong", I think, but I'll accept it as valid.  :-) It is difficult to find any article which is on a controverial topic which does not have some form of a criticism section. Renaming those to "reception" sections is just silly, IMHO, and a product of being too PC for one's own good. I agree that calling Newsweek a critic is not exactly correct. Just for the record on the words to avoid, I wasn't the one that introduced those.

Why did you remove the direct quote from Monbiot, should we not let his words speak for themselves?

--GoRight 06:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On some topics, "controversy" sections are inevitable. Sometimes there are even separate articles when the controversies are substantial enough - but working "criticism" into a cohesive narrative rather than separating it is the preferred approach when feasible. In this case, we have have a few critical sources, so there's really no problem with integrating them into coverage of Singer's views on global warming, tobacco, etc. I'm not suggesting we rename it to "reception", just that we directly integrate it as I tried to do in my edit. As to Monbiot's quote, I think it's essential to note his caveat in the interest of balance. I removed the quote because it was phrased as "Monbiot went on to admit..." In this context, "admit" is probably a word to avoid, and it certainly seemed to frame the issue pretty suggestively. I was striving for a more neutral presentation (as with changing "claimed" to "wrote" in the same paragraph). We can certainly go back to the quote if you feel my summary is problematic, but just set it up with "Monbiot also wrote..." rather than "Monbiot went on to admit..." That was my issue. MastCell ^Talk 20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sagan/Singer on Nightline.

Similar to the criticism charges, I think the Sagan/Singer debate on Nightline is overstated and poorly sourced. There's no mainstream media coverage that I could find, and it seems to violate WP:WEIGHT to include a large section on this one appearance. I think it should be vastly reduced or removed entirely, along with the criticism charges I've already discussed. ATren 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be satisfied with a trimmed down section but it keeps getting deleted because the sourcing is difficult. We are talking about an event that occurred more than 15 years ago so on-line sources from that era are sparse. There is no doubt that the event occurred (Singer himself notes it in his interview on his own site) and it is note worthy because it highlights a direct interaction between a climate change proponent and a climate change skeptic and we know the outcome.

I agree that the first reference appears to have relied on the Wikipedia material but it is still hosted by a valid media outlet which means that it should satisfy WP:RS and WP:BLP. I will continue to dig up additional references.

On the issue of WP:WEIGHT this is a small article without a lot of people investing time into it. It seems mainly to be a place for AGW wars to take place. The fact that other more deserving sections have not be fleshed out does not reduce the significance of this event.

--GoRight 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The article Carl Sagan says this topic is covered in The Demon-Haunted World. Check WorldCat and find a nearby library copy so you can write a precise citation. (SEWilco 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

Good sugestion, thanks. Amazon had the book available for $10 so I just purchased a copy to have. It looks like it might be a decent read anyway. --GoRight 19:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Try pages 256-257. Nuclear winter#_note-4 (SEWilco 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

Also see the sources for Kuwaiti oil fires and see if that article needs more citations. (SEWilco 19:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

The closest thing I can find is this talk entry on Sagan's page. The book should arrive on Monday at which point I should be able to make a good reference. --GoRight 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, there is some research on the talk page here too.

I still believe that there is too much detail and commentary, per WP:WEIGHT. Yes, there should be something said on the matter (especially if Sagan himself acknowledged the error) but the current text is too much. I will try to edit this down somewhat, at least until Monday when you get Sagan's book and can source directly from there. ATren 20:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the discussion is rather one sided; quite what Sagan said is unclear. The bald assertion that Sagan predicted that smoky oil fires in Kuwait set by Saddam Hussein's army during the first Gulf War would cause an ecological disaster and send black clouds into the atmosphere resulting in global cooling. is probably wrong William M. Connolley 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Started reading this one recently. Jumping ahead to page 257, as noted:

"Just before Iraq torched the Kuwaiti oil wells in January 1991, I warned that so much smoke might get so high as to disrupt agriculture in much of South Asia; as events transpired, was pitch black at noon and temperatures dropped 4-6 C over the Persian Gulf, but not much smoke reached stratospheric altitudes and Asia was spared. I did not sufficiently stress the uncertainty of the calculations."

By Sagan's account, although he's describing this in brief, he didn't seem to have predicted a "nuclear winter" or "global cooling", just that the agriculture in much of South Asia might be disrupted. As for "ecological disaster", I suppose that's subjective. It did have serious environmental and human consequences that have lingered for years. [[17]] Was the alleged Nightline discussion limited to the stratosphere issue or were other issues discussed? Other articles such as Kuwaiti oil fires and Nuclear Winter should be looked at as well.

As for this article, this material only indirectly applies to the section in question. What exactly happened in the alleged interview? You'd think those who are describing the interview would at least have a transcript or video. There still is no good source for this section other than some biased .orgs that attempt to unfairly and inaccurately portray Sagan as a crazy "alarmist" and Singer as a reasoned skeptic based on a potential debate point earned 15 years ago. Is this really Singer's claim to fame?

GoRight, from the few chapters I've read, your $10 is well spent. Good book so far. Like any good scientist, Sagan is a true skeptic.Gmb92 05:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If only he hadn't smoked pot he could have done so much more. Steve Dufour 05:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I give up. This simply happened too long ago for any references to have survived it seems. While Sagan's book does admit his prediction was wrong but it doesn't mention Singer. I don't believe that there is any credible way to salvage this interesting piece of trivia, and I admit it is trivia ... but still pertinent trivia. An interesting historical factoid if you will. This is hardly Singer's claim to fame as Gmb92 points out as well.

The only option I can think of to provide a reference is to actually contact Singer about it. I am sure that he would get a chuckle out of our warring over such a minor historical anecdote.  :)

I believe that it is a shame that we should lose this little piece of history, that there seems little doubt actually occurred, but there is no way that I can find using a reasonable effort to authenticate it properly. I guess this means that both the sagan page and the Kuwaiti Oil Fires pages need to be scrubbed as well. --GoRight 03:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's mildly interesting and could be worth a mention, but we do need a reliable, nonbiased source. Raymond Arritt 03:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, so use Nightline as a source. In this case they should be authoritative. (SEWilco 05:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

If anyone can find a transcript, fine. If not, we have no source. Currently our source for this info is an anonymous editor [18]. This isn;t good enough William M. Connolley 13:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should try to locate a transcript or some other independent verification of this. ATren 13:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Our source already is a transcript. What made you confuse that reference thing at the end of the paragraph with an anonymous posting from December? Incidentally, the unreasonable amount of effort needed to confirm Nightline as a source involves Nightline, ABC News Store, Transcripts, transcripts.tv, Advanced Search, end of January 1991. (SEWilco 13:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

OK, so you have verified it. That's all I was looking for. ATren 14:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not OK yet. Who has read this transcript? What exactly does it say? Is the quotation exact and fair? William M. Connolley 14:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I cited it, I read it. (SEWilco 15:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Excellent! So I assume you purchased a copy and have provided the exact quote contained therein? --GoRight 16:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe a quotation is what quotation marks mean. Is there better wikisyntax? (SEWilco 16:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

I am not questioning you on this. I am just happy that we can save this bit of history here on wikipedia. I was just confused about whether you had a copy of the transcript in your hands and it seems that you do. Excellent find.

It may be worth putting a hidden comment along with your reference discussing how it was obtained since an on-line version is not available. Given the amount of push back on this point it is worth providing the extra information along with the citation itself. I am not sure how hidden comments are done on wikipedia. Is the a wiki syntax for them or do you just use HTML comments? --GoRight 16:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added an HTML comment in the reference to indicate that the quote was verified from the transcript. --GoRight 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unable to find this from the ABC News Store. The list I get is [[19]]. Then again, I haven't found the "advanced search" either from the ABC News Store site [[20]]. The site does say there are titles not available online. Gmb92 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at the URLs for all of the Transcripts on the ABC News Store. The "Special Reports" one presently will let you see an ABC option and proceed. You need Javascript enabled and further URLs are hidden. Send a message to transcripts.tv telling them what you think of their site design. (SEWilco 05:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

Go to http://www.transcripts.tv. If prompted click on the ABC logo, if not select "Switch" on the top menu and then click on the ABC logo. From there you can select ADV search. I selected nightline, put in Carl Sagan as the keywords, and selected 01/01/1991 to 01/31/1991 and it took me straight to the right one. --GoRight 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

SEW, you are being too terse. Please provide the URL you got it from. Also please provide more context - these things are frequently taken out of context. If its fair use to quote that much, it will be fair use to quote a few paragraphs before and after William M. Connolley 19:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious. Are you somehow related to Carl Sagan?  :) --GoRight 21:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Monbiot

Why do you keep reverting my reference? --GoRight 08:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't, up to now ;-). Anyways, it does not add useful information but just spin. If people don't know who Moniot is, the information is just one link away. Don't repeat it unnecessarily. --Stephan Schulz 09:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you feel that you are being just a little petty here? I believe that it is relevant information and you are not disputing it as being factually incorrect. It hurts nothing to have it here and the fact that the user can click to learn about Monbiot is irrelevant. I have streamlined things for the user, it is more convenient having it here as it now requires no clicks to learn everything you need to know to put his criticism in context.  :)

As I indicated on the WP:BLP/N page, I am not going to continue to complain about the reference so why won't you at least compromise by allowing me to improve the text?

And what's this "removing it again" in the summary? That was the first time you deleted it. --GoRight 09:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't include information because it is "factually correct". Otherwise our articles would read very boringly indeed (1+1=2; 1+2=3; 2+1=3; 1+1+1=3;...). The purpose of giving Monbiot as the source is to properly attribute the statement, not to repeat his biography. And of ourse, you don't include "everything you need to know to put his criticism in context", but rather some piece of information you feel useful for transporting your interpretation of the issue. I don't agree with this selection, and I think more information about Monbiot is sufficiently accessible via the hyperlink - indeed, that's the whole idea of hypertext.

I don't have WP:BLP/N on my watchlist, and I don't know what you discussed there. I also don't think this is a reasonable compromise model ("I won't shoot the population of Cameroon, so let me at least steal your bicycle"). And I'm fine with you improving the text. But this edit didn't - it added both spin and bloat, while serving no useful purpose.

English is not my native language, but as far as I understand it "again" is a normal colloquial usage in this case. "X did something and Y undid it again" - sorry if I'm wrong about this, it was not intendet to mislead. --Stephan Schulz 10:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended on the "again" comment. Just as a means of helping you on the topic in all good faith, the usage of "again" would be more like "X did something. Y undid something. X did something, again. Y undid something, again." "Again" is interpreted as a repetition of the same action in this context. Since the "did" and the "undids" are obviously differing actions they would have the again applied independently from one another. On a related point, if we are talking in terms of "edits" (as opposed to "dids" and "undids") then your usage would have been correct, as in "X edited the article. Y edited it again." I was just curious about why you phrased it the way you did and you have proved a reasonable explanation. It was never a big deal.

On the issue of compromise, it is generally considered a process if "give and take". In other words I'll give you something if you give me something in return. In this case the details are "I'll stop complaining about the Monbiot reference as being extraneous and biased and agree to leave it in the article without any further fuss" if you will "let me at least characterize the man's views therein". This seems to be a perfectly reasonable compromise in which you get the larger benefit, IMHO. I am not even trying to twist or misrepresent his views in this case as I took existing text word for word from his BLP which I assume is considered fair and accurate.

I am not trying to repeat his entire biography here, which I find to be a bit disingenuous on your part. I am merely providing a succinct summarization of his views for the benefit of the readers of THIS article, at least those portions of his views that I believe are relevant to the reader of THIS article. If you believe that I have been too selective in that regard then by all means include whatever other elements of his views that you feel are relevant to THIS article in a similarly succinct way and I won't complain. The reader of THIS article and the criticism in question has a right to know that Monbiot holds views which are antagonistic to Singer, as opposed to being a merely impartial observer as the text now implies and therefore is misleading. I suspect that this is why you and others are arguing against the inclusion of text that was developed impartially (presumably) and is found to be acceptable on his BLP.

You and William Connolley seem to be arguing, "why repeat it?" My answer is that the current text gives a misleading impression of Monbiot's impartiality in this case which I seek to clarify for the readers of THIS article. Since we are talking about a small piece of text which is already on his BLP (the point being that it is not something that I made up to be misleading), I simply turn the question around and ask, "why not repeat it if it is accurate and it potentially clarifies Monbiot's motives for leveling the criticism in question? I assume that you will agree that Monbiot is not a neutral observer in this debate, correct? --GoRight 17:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there/was there a School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami?

I seem unable to find much information about this University of Miami School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences that Singer says he founded in 1964 and ran until 1967. With three somewhat ambiguous exceptions, everything I found was just a reference to Singer's bio. The first exception is a bio where the professor says he was invited to be a guest lecturer at a "Summer" School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences in 1967. [21] The second is a reference to a "Summer Institute" in July 1967 that included a course on Fundamental Concepts in Environmental and Planetary Sciences. [22] (and a similar reference to a "Certificate" from the University of Miami in Environmental and Planetary Sciences in 1967 [23].

Still looking for available sources of information to cite. Currently, the University of Miami has "Summer Institutes" that appear to give not-for-credit, professional development courses. Not clear yet if the available information will suggest a modification of this part of Singer's biography.Brian A Schmidt 21:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep looking.[24] [25] [26] You should make proper arrangements with the University before driving down to Coral Gables to research the archives. (SEWilco 00:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

It would be interesting to know more details; e.g., was the "school" basically a one-man show in the same manner as his "project" SEPP, or was it a full-fledged department? Raymond Arritt 00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You obviously didn't look at the links I provided. Good luck with the rest of your study. (SEWilco 00:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

In one of those links he's a "Professor" and "Principal Investigator" in another - I'm wondering where there's confirmation that he became a "Dean", as well as explanations about the School that weren't written by him. Brian A Schmidt 06:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Again it would be interesting to know more about this "school." As far as I can tell it seems to have vanished after Singer left, which is rather unusual for a major division of a university. You seem to know a lot about it; what happened after 1967? Raymond Arritt 01:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There are clues in the UM history, but I also didn't know it was a major division. How many Institutes are needed to be a major division? (SEWilco 01:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

I know a few people at RSMAS; maybe they could ask around to see what happened to it. Raymond Arritt 01:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be great if you could ask; I sent an email to CESP too.Brian A Schmidt 06:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

RSMAS was part of the School, so they might know some of its history. (SEWilco 02:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Really?? RSMAS website says it was founded in 1940. Singer's being too modest in his bio - he founded a major university institution when he was 16 years old! We can give him the credit he's due. Brian A Schmidt 06:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You apparently haven't looked for the name of the school in the first of my three links above. RSMAS used to be an Institute. (SEWilco 15:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Proving what, exactly? That the "School" that Singer claims to have founded is just a renaming of pre-existing institutes? I wouldn't go that far even, yet. I still want to see somewhere that U of M gives Singer credit for founding the School and considers him a dean. It might also be worth adding to the bio that he was the first "and only" Dean if it turns the School he founded was just a flash in the pan. Brian A Schmidt 17:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there were at least two Institutes which were part of the School. RSMAS was not renamed from SEPS. What is now RSMAS was then the Institute of Marine Science, a part of SEPS. If you want to see U of M documents maybe you should go to the U of M. (SEWilco 18:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

It's a bit of a drive for me, so I'll just do what I can remotely. So what was the other institute besides Marine Science? Brian A Schmidt 00:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You might want to update Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science with what you learn, as it's a stub. (SEWilco 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Found some more info on Google Books, but it's still a little unclear. One doc published in September 1963 appears to refer to the School, no mention of Singer in the doc. [27]. On the other hand, I found another article written by Singer and published in 1965 identifying himself as the "now Dean" of the School, which would be a bold thing to say about one's current job title if it were incorrect. Brian A Schmidt 06:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Two emails and a phone call later to the University of Miami without a response (directed to RMSAS), so no light's been shed on this yet. I'll keep trying, but if anyone has any leads or contacts there, that would be helpful in determining whether there's an accuracy problem in this part of the Singer article.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

According to what I can find, Singer was dean when the school was founded. The word "founder" by itself may be ambiguous, especially in a large project such as a new university division, in which many people are involved. The phrase "founding Dean" seems more appropriate. FellGleaming (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell us what you found, especially if there are links that don't ultimately go back to Singer himself?Brian A Schmidt (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You might look at the links which already are in this section. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read every link. What I'm looking for is confirmation from a source other than Singer himself that the University of Miami considered Singer the "founding Dean" of SEPS. Also some info on what happened to it.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Transcript

Extracts from the transcript (http://www.transcripts.tv/), to save us all the fairy-dancing. Given this is an article about Singer, not Sagan, perhaps the Singer quote should be longer than the Sagan one?

KOPPEL

...But focus, if you would, on the environmental damage. If all those oil wells and storage depots are set on fire simultaneously, you're telling me that the impact environmentally would be negligible?

PROF SINGER

Yes. We have, I think, quite valid calculations that support this. These are calculations that have been done by the Defense Department and the Department of Energy, by Dr Richard Small at Sierra Research and by Dr Joyce Penne at Livermore National Laboratory. And what these calculations on supercomputers show is that first of all, that there wouldn't be enough smoke, even in the worst case, and secondly, that the smoke would only go to an altitude of about 3,000 feet, which means, according to the National Academy calculations, that the smoke would rain out after about three to five days. So the lifetime of the smoke is quite limited.

[cut]

KOPPEL

All right. Professor Sagan, quite clearly you disagree. So take your best shot.

CARL SAGAN, CORNELL UNIVERSITY

Okay. What I'm about to describe are some calculations that Richard Turco, who appeared on your piece that began this part of the segment, and I have done. We assume that all the Kuwaiti oil - producing facilities are mined and ask what would happen if they are all simultaneously in flames. This is by no means a worst case, because we're not paying any attention to stored oil, we're not paying any attention to natural gas, we're ignoring the possibility of oil well fires in Iraq, which exist right now and I would imagine are likely to grow with further allied raids, and we're neglecting the possibility of the extension of the war to oil - producing facilities in Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf emirates and, if the war really takes off, in Iran.

KOPPEL

So, just limiting it to Kuwait, what do you project?

DR SAGAN

A set of smoke plumes rises over Kuwait, is carried east by the prevailing westerlies. The smoke is self - lofting. This seems to be something that Dr Singer neglected in his discussion. We now know from the nuclear winter investigation of the problem that black sooty smoke heated by the sun heats the surrounding air, the hot air rises, carrying the entrained soot to much higher altitudes. Now, another important point is, you can't cap an oil well fire. Red Adair takes a week, two weeks, for a single petroleum fire, so the natural lifetime of these oil well fires is months to maybe as much as a year, which means that if we have a winter war that involves this burning, the smoke will continue into spring, summer and possibly even fall, the growing season.

KOPPEL

And Dr Sagan, clearly this is a subject on which we could and perhaps one of these days will spend an entire broadcast, but if you could just very quickly spell out for me -

DR SAGAN

We think that the net effects will be very similar to the explosion of the Indonesian volcano Tambora in 1815, which resulted in the year 1816 being known as the year without a summer. There were massive agricultural failures in North America and in western Europe, and very serious human suffering and, in some cases, starvation. Especially for south Asia that seems to be in the cards, and perhaps for a significant fraction of the northern hemisphere as well.

[end]

William M. Connolley 21:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should focus on Singer, not Sagan. William, care to take a stab at a more Singer-centric version? If not, I'll give it a shot tomorrow. ATren 21:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree but I don't believe that Mr. Connolley is the man for this task. I can take a stab at it but maybe not until tomorrow. I wasn't in love with the original quote that was here, but as far as I can tell given this it was pretty fair and accurate so I might start with something along those lines. The only thing I might change is rather than summarizing Singer I might include his full quote from above. Are people going to have a cow if things expand a little bit because of including Singer's full quote?

Unless SEWilco wants to take a second stab at it. He deserves the first stab if he wants it. --GoRight 21:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be reduced, not expanded. As for Mr. Connolley adding it, why not? If we disagree, we'll debate - that's why it's a Wiki. :-) ATren 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, if Mr. Connolley wants to start the process fine. What the heck is the problem with giving a reasonable length description of the event with actual quotes? There's no point otherwise. You might as well write "In 1991 Fred Singer and Carl Sagan appeared on Nightline. The end." The quotes alone would exand it relative to the curent length. Is wikipedia running short on bytes or something? --GoRight 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too long, and too focused on Sagan. A simple statement that Singer debated Sagan, followed by a short quote from Singer, would be sufficient - with no Sagan quote. There's no need to focus on Sagan's incorrect prediction, especially in Singer's article - we've already seen that Sagan's side of the issue was properly dealt with in his article, where a there is a later quote from Sagan himself admitting his flawed reasoning. No need to rehash his side here.

I also think the Singer quote can be shorter, perhaps not even a quote but a summary. Let's not forget, this was a single appearance on a news show 16 years ago. Even if it is a notable event in Singer's career (debatable) it does not deserve more than a passing reference. ATren 16:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's an interesting sidelight but the present discussion is way too long. Raymond Arritt 16:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I believe that some discussion of the event is in order. We can do that here, on Sagan's page, on the Kuwait Oil Fires page, or anywhere else you might suggest. But the fact remains that the event happened, they each made their predeictions, and the "fallout" is now known. So I don't care where we put it but I don't see any reason to water it down to the point where these facts are obscured. I see that Sagan's page no longer mentions the debate aspect of this, a point that I choose to leave alone as my purpose is not to denigrate Sagan, but rather to highlight Singer's successful prediction which is why I prefer to have the description here.

As to why Sagan's quote is larger than Singer's? The answer is simply that Singer was apparantly more succinct and to the point than Sagan was. I can't change the fact that Sagan used 5x the words to make his point, can I? I prefer to stick with the actual quotes rather than some bland paraphrasing thereof.

Note that I have reverted and updated the material on the Kuwait Oil Fires page to better reflect the details now known here.

If we don't describe the event in any of these places then we should create an article dedicated to the event itself wherein the actual quotes and resulting impacts can be adequately mentioned. Thoughts?

--GoRight 17:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that it deserves a brief reference. The Kuwaiti oil fires article, which you've added to and this section here links to, covers this in more detail. It's more of a weight issue. Gmb92 07:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was happy enough with how the Kuwait oil fires one turned out as a paraphrase so I just copied that one here too. If the rest of you want to trim it more or replace it with what Mr. Connolley had or even some otehr alternative I won't object. ---- GoRight (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: I notice a "[cut]" in the transcript just after Singer's quote. What has been removed? --GoRight 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Koppel assumed Singer's statements were based upon the fires being quickly put out. Singer assured Koppel that they were assuming the fires would continue, yet the smoke would only have local effects. (SEWilco 19:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

Thanks. I tried to purchase a copy and have it e-mailed to me but there was a glitch in the ordering process. Their customer service types said that they got the order and that I should receive an e-mail. Since Mr. Connolley obviously received his e-mail in short order it appears that I am now stranded in customer service limbo.  :( --GoRight 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This article seems quite bias. It should be edited to give readers facts, not the writers' opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.178.127 (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation #17 is cherry picked and not demonstrative to position

As I read the the synopsis, I noticed it references a document (citation #17) but lacks to add the abstract's last comment: "Although lower temperatures were recorded in 1991, Kuwait oil fires had no lasting meteorological impacts at any of the locations examined, and there has been no change to the seasonal synoptic weather patterns throughout the Persian Gulf Region."Bold text Additionally, the document just mentions that the fires had an impact for 'days' but does not elaborate and is therefore not a clear or demonstrative counter assertion of the professor's comments. I find this troublesome as students around the country are starting to use Wikipedia as a first source of documented material [both teachers and students are not paying attention to the caveats of reviewed/approved material]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.79.98 (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Why does [28] support "In the 1950s, Singer was Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Maryland."? Why does [29]? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does [30] support "Singer has also been a consultant to the House Select Committee on Space, NASA, GAO, NSF, AEC, NRC, DOD (Strategic Defense Initiative), US DOE Nuclear Waste Panel, the US Treasury, and the state governments of Virginia, Alaska, and Pennsylvania". William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And why aren't they cited in support of what they are obviously about? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[31] supports Singer's consultant background on Pg #2 of the document (his attached bio.) I used this reference as you have already unfairly attacked two previous sources of the same information as "unreliable". Since this particular source was *already* being used by the article in support of a different claim -- and since you've left this source in across repeated edits -- you obviously cannot attack it on the same grounds. In short, it was used to short-circuit your POV-pushing attempts.FellGleaming (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Help me here. I can't see an attached bio on p2 of [32]]. You're claiming it states that "Singer has also been a consultant to the House Select Committee on Space, NASA, GAO, NSF, AEC, NRC, DOD (Strategic Defense Initiative), US DOE Nuclear Waste Panel, the US Treasury, and the state governments of Virginia, Alaska, and Pennsylvania"? Or are you paraphrasing something? If the latter, please quote. And... I don't see an answer to my first q William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The wrong tobaccodocuments.org link was being referenced; this has been corrected. If your first question is regarding his directorship of CAASP, its also on the corrected link.FellGleaming (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's very questionable to use Singer's own CV as a source for his accomplishments. Per WP:SELFPUB, this is only acceptable if it is a) not contentious, b) is not unduly self-serving, and c) the article is not based primarily on such sources. I'd accept it as a source for hard data (like positions held), but I'd be much more reluctant for things like "MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS" (caps his ;-). After all, the typical purpose of a CV is to make the subject look good, not to convey a neutral image. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think it is contentious. Clearly we can't use his description of SEPP, for example. But unless it can be shown he's been telling porkies, I'd be inclined to accept it for the purely factual bits William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I took out "He was the Science Advisor to then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower." pending a source for this info. Please don't revert "Singer designed the ozone-monitoring instrument for early versions of US weather satellites" - this is what the source says. Inventing stuff is different. Nor does the source provided say that "he founded the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences", only that he became the first dean (my suspicion is that refs have been retro-fitted to existing text, which is why the claims don't quite match).

NewsMax

The only references I've been able to locate for this claim are Wikipedia itself, and a few sites which appear to derive from it. Unless someone can scratch up a valid reference, I'm inclined to delete it. FellGleaming (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User Raul654 says that this can't be deleted. Is there a reason? It's uncited as of April 2008.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Melanoma

The current statement on melanoma appears to be misleading. From reading the sources, its clear Singer believes that all UV causes certain types of skin cancer, whereas the more dangerous melanoma form is only caused by UV-A, not UV-B. I have moved this text to a next section so that it can be expanded, to accurately reflect his viewpoint. FellGleaming (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Full protection

I've fully protected this page because of edit warring. Work it out, or please take this to dispute resolution.--Hu12 (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

unlocked--Hu12 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Moons of Mars

Singer may have in some obscure writing expressed his interest in the tentative speculation of Iosif Shklovsky's regarding the origin of the moons of Mars[33] but inclusion of that chance remark in the article creates a false impression. Fred Talk 15:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why thats so. What exactly is the "false impression" created? It was a long time ago but so were most of his accomplishments, and why is the writing obscure? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved it down while you two decide, if its kept or not its clearly not intro material. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been unable to find the cited piece. The only "Astronautics" I have been able to located from the 1960's time period, was not published in 1960, but 1963, there is also no page number to further attempt to verify. William can you please provide the full information, correct publisher, page number etc. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

'Astronautics' was renamed the 'Journal of Astronautics' sometime in the 90s - that could be throwing off your search. Regardless, I put in a request to my University's inter-library loan request system yesterday, and when I checked my email this morning, I had a scanned pdf copy of the letter courtesy of Kansas State University's library. I've updated the article. Raul654 (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, "("My conclusion therefore is, and here I back Schklevsky, that if the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observations, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis) makes sense, especially if there were measurements showing a decaying orbit. The orbits of natural satellites do not decay, at least not for long. That certainly doesn't not establish that Singer "believed in Martians", only that he was willing to entertain a hypothesis. It is obvious now that the moons are natural objects, but it was once at least conceivable that they were not; they are unusually small. Fred Talk 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have filled out the complete quote, and filled out the Phobos information as well. I find some thing disturbing; the removal of the second half of the quote which states that his support of the concept was based on the numbers provided and that he entertained due to the manner in which they were collected, that they may be incorrect; that the information regarding the numbers being incorrect was also left out; and that the information regarding why the landing on Phobos was being suggested, instead the information appears directly following the magazine article, though they are 20 years apart, and not based on the same information or reasoning. I filled out both sections, and added that the calculations were wrong, which was later discovered, and which his supported was entirely based on. I also added the full information regarding Phobos and why it was recommended per his own cited paper. I want to thank Raul for providing the article, without it I would not have been able to provide a complete quote. --I Write Stuff (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A new blog says this article is being censored

This article says that this article is beng censored. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a blog, not an article. --Art Smart (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And its a pile of dingoes kidneys William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it ever occur to you to be courteous? Fred Talk 03:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I could point you to any number of examples. Your own words above are not a shining example (unlike mine, which were an attack on the article rather than a person, yours seem to be an attack on me). Its all context-dependent. Its hard to see G's post as being a good-faith attempt to improve this article. The journo in question is deeply and obviously biased (you've read the article I presume?). What he thinks about this article is of no interest William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it affects our public image. I'm afraid we must candidly discuss gross violations of Wikipedia's policies. Fred Talk 09:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Solomon blogs: "Fred Singer [is] one of the world’s renowned scientists" with a "long and outstanding scientific career". Compare that with the professional opinions of Singer's own peers: "ABC News showed Singer's most recent report on global warming to climate scientists from NASA, from Stanford University and from Princeton. They dismissed it as 'fabricated nonsense.' " So who is right? To elucidate the discrepancy, please note that "Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud." Sounds about as unbiased as Singer himself, who admits taking money from big oil. I don't think Wikipedia owes a single apology to anyone. --Art Smart (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So if an institute received money from a environmental group, then we would discount them as well? How about if Al Gore spoke at a Green Peace rally? does he now fail the test of reliable and is not a bias shill? --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Al Gore, earnest drudge that he is, remains reliable. Fred Talk 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard this nonsense often enough. As far as I'm aware (and I'm reasonably well acquainted with the pages in question), none of the global warming/climate change pages uses Al Gore as a source for anything scientific (or even a source at all).

In general, an unreliable source does not taint the information provided, it just does not support it. If Don Knuth and Dani Sleator publish a paper on the complexity of balanced binary search trees, that paper does not lose any value just because Bill Gates and Bobo the Clown also support it. If just Gates and Bobo have an opinion on this topic, it's essentially unsupported. If Knuth and Sleator have one opinion, and Gates and Bobo another one, we cite Knuth and Sleator. Only if Knuth and Sleator disagree we have to document a conflict in reliable sources. Or, in the concrete case, Gore is usually right because he agrees with reliable sources, not because he is Gore. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In all of this I am not hearing any proof that his research was flawed due to where he received funding from. Is there at least a reliable source stating this directly? --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We can never determine truth here, that is not our responsibility. What we can do is depend on reliable sources. And neither Gore, Solomon or Greenpeace are such. What we can say, with support from quite a large number of reliable sources, is that Singer is balancing the fringe edge of quite a lot of subjects, including global warming. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that classification, however stating his research was manipulated by the source of funding, from one of the 20+ prestigious companies he worked for, is a bit absurd and possibly a BLP violation, calling a scientist a liar or corrupt that is, without extremely reliable sources, and then possibly still a BLP issue. I am personally a believer in Global Warming, however it does not change the issue discussed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no one called Singer "a liar or corrupt". But ABC News does report that his peers from NASA, Stanford University and Princeton have characterized his most recent work as "fabricated nonsense". His admission of taking money from big oil, which obviously has very much to gain from inaction on carbon emissions, at least gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. As for blogger Solomon, the appearance of a conflict of interest is just as clear. He has books to sell, and Singer's credibility may be key to those sales. --Art Smart (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't anyone publishing a book or paper on the topic, have monetary influence? At what point do we lay a cut off? Also it seems this conflict on interest is again mentioned, is this also true when oil companies give to environmental groups? Is there some underlying mischief? You are correct that no one called him "corrupt" in those words, however saying his research is suspect because he was employed by an oil company seems to be original research, and a hefty allegation without proof. Who are we to say his funder influenced his research? Who's side was he on when he consulted for IBM? for Lockheed Martin? --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess ABC News was wrong for even mentioning his receipt of money from Exxon. They should have known that such information is entirely irrelevant, and therefore should have been left out of the article. Shame on ABC News for even asking the question, much less reporting the answer. Or did I miss your point? --Art Smart (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you just replied in nasty manner. Amazingly it seems the only people editing the article are people who seem to have a less than healthy investment in his ill appearance. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks. None were intended against you, and sorry if that's how you interpreted it. But that does not excuse you in any way. --Art Smart (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My deepest apology, I took your reply as quite nasty and unnecessary, however you are correct, even in your sarcastic and biting tone, you did not issue a personal attack, and apologize for letting my buttons be pressed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and no harm done. I was merely trying my hand at "reductio ad absurdum", if that's the right term for it, and I guess I was a bit clumsy. Again, sorry. --Art Smart (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The curse that I see on him results from denial that second-hand tobacco smoke does not cause cancer. That is clear evidence of magical thinking. Unless somehow that can be gotten out of the article, I'm afraid his reputation suffers. To put it bluntly, he has karma. In this article he seems almost to be an advocate for confusion. Fred Talk 14:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is this discussion going? We started with we must candidly discuss gross violations of Wikipedia's policies from Fred. What gross violations would those be? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your continued lack of civility. As exemplified by this edit Fred Talk 01:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please clarify which wikipedian was offended and why? `'Míkka>t 02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This one, a Wikipedia editor in good standing, if somewhat confused about how Wikipedia works. Fred Talk 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Subtle sneak attack ;-). But not applicable. Becoming a Wikipedia editor does not protect independently notable persons from criticism, not even from strongly worded criticism. Solomon was not offended as a Wikipedian, but as a crappy Journalist who combines lack of fact checking (or worse) with a strong bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Its a bit tricky. As a journalist, he's obviously of very poor quality. As a wikipedian, NPA applies. Since I can't strike out an edit comment I hereby withdraw it and apologise for making it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused too. As far as I can tell, what has happened is: obviously grossly biased journalist writes very poor blog article about wikipedia. Our correct response is: ignore it, in terms of the articles it discusses; perhaps add it to the list-of-journalism-about wiki, if there is one. We certainly *don't* modify the article in response. *If* the article has identified any flaws in our process or articles we should respond; but if it has, no-one has seen fit to mention them William M. Connolley (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ignore it. --Art Smart (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The $10,000

"Singer acknowledges accepting $10,000 from Exxon." So what? I received 10k from ExxonMobile for a week of consulting work. This statement creates the impression some guy dressed in a trench coat wearing mirror glasses snuck into Singers office by the back door and slipped him an envelope as some kind of pay off. We don't know why he got the 10k. Maybe it was to study the effect of refinery smoke on squirrels, who knows. I think this statement should be removed. It adds nothing to the article and is not NPOV. Xtrump (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this entry into the article is a simple attempt to devalue Singer's extensive work, whose grants and other funds raised certainly swamp this paltry sum. It is a purely partisan POV attempt to denigrate anyone who might disagree with anthropogenically caused global warming.

There is absolutely no evidence that the $10,000 sum had any influence whatsoever on Singer's scientific viewpoint (in fact, it would be ludicrous to say so given his long history of research conclusions). He certainly held the same viewpoints both before and after the sum was given (but the article citation, which looks like a hit piece if I've seen one, gives no date, so we can't determine anything from its inclusion). We also have no idea as for which research project it was donated--something essential to know if it is to tell us anything nontrivial about Singer.

It seems to be in direct violation of Wiki's WP:NPOV policy, especially as it regards biographies for living persons (BLPs):

• It is specifically meant to denigrate Singer as a shill for the oil industry (the "do no harm" rule).
• It is "tabloid journalism" material not worthy of an encyclopedia (at least as it now stands--no context, just innuendo).
• At the least, the citation used is a "poorly sourced" highly partisan article meant specifically to undermine Singer and contains unfounded statements and demonstrable error.

Some article admin help here to bring it into compliance would be valuable. --John G. Miles (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not desperately happy with it myself, but the apparent belief above that Exxon just paid him the money for fun isn't very plausible William M. Connolley (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about "fun" or whether it is true or not, it's about the purpose of the contribution of this piece of trivia to the article. Exxon donated the paltry sum because it supported the research Singer was already doing. It had no bearing on Singer's motivations whatsoever as far as his research was concerned--it has been consistent all along. And that's what makes the insertion of this single line extremely tenuous and POV. --John G. Miles (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I readded the "unsolicited" which was removed, then moved it out of the section it was in. The source says Singer stated he received the money and that it was unsolicited, Wikipedia can not choose to accept half of his statement as true. I removed the statement from where it was because the source never stated that it was the organization of Singer that received the money. --I Write Stuff (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I was about to move it out of the NIPCC section myself (along with the other pejorative statement) because it (they) had nothing to do with NIPCC as sourced. Thanks for promoting a good NPOV encyclopedic article. --John G. Miles (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing SEPP foundation of NIPCC

(John G. Miles (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)) I've reverted this for lack of sourcing reasons as required by Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) again for the following reasons:

I have searched all the links in this section for anything linking SEPP itself, not just Fred Singer, to the actual foundation and organization of the NIPCC. Already cited sources indicate a clear involvement by others. I also searched the entire PDF version of the NIPCC Summary and couldn't find anything linking SEPP to the organizational efforts for the NIPCC.

The ONLY thing that even remotely comes close is that the NIPCC 2008 Summary is copyrighted by SEPP/Fred Singer. But that says nothing of SEPP as an organization being involved in founding NIPCC. That's the linkage that requires sourcing and without such, BLP guidelines require the material be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Singer can be linked to founding the NIPCC, but SEPP cannot (as far as I've researched), and so I have left it at that.

What on Earth makes you think that the NIPCC is an organization - or even more than just a collection of individuals who made a report for the SEPP? I'm not going to try to prove a negative here - you onus must be to convince us that the NIPCC is more than just a SEPP publication. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My "thoughts" on the matter are completely irrelevant--sourcing is the issue, though NIPCC is registered as a nonprofit organization. The onus of sourcing is on the person making the claim. I simply removed the claim until sourcing can be provided. I'm completely comfortable with the claim if it is true, which I tried to determine in good faith. BTW, "conservative" as a label for a journal is also a POV (even though I agree with it) without sourcing and was part of the revert. The reader of the Singer BLP can click the link and come to their own POV conclusions as to Newsmax. Under what circumstances would you consider POV labeling acceptable (I'm educatable here), as I have been tempted to add some for context, but resisted? Just trying to stay neutral and stick by the intent & rules of Wiki. --John G. Miles (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The NewsMax article itself has sources pointing to its self-labeling as conservative. There's no need to reproduce those sources here when a link to the article will do. Jason Patton (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Then source it! Is it too much to ask that the rules of WP:BLP be enforced? There is a definite effort to preserve a POV going on here. --John G. Miles (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the NIPCC registered as a non-profit organization? Please deliver the source for that. Because that would be a good argument for it being an organization by itself. That SEPP has the (c)opyright for the document is imho enough (unless of course you can show us its a non-prof org). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well no matter - its now sourced. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check the article as there were two (2) sourcing issues. It's important to note, however, that a present-day copyright says nothing about an organization having done something in the past, and that's the only thing I'm trying to get sourced. Had someone other than Singer copyrighted the material, by your logic, they would be the creators (or I would be if he allowed me to copyright it). Just doesn't fly. --John G. Miles (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually its not just the copyright issue - but that speaks for a lot. We also have the disclaimer that clearly stated that any issues taken with the document should refer to SEPP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A present-day copyright of material published by one organization for another organization says nothing about who created whom in the past. Organizations merge, associate, and do all other sorts of things that make this claim untenable. As for the dislaimer stuff--you lost me. I think we've exhausted everything we have to say here. I'll gladly give you the last word. --John G. Miles (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I never changed the status of the NIPCC except providing additional info about it as sourced. I never claimed it was a non-profit in the article, though it is and I'll source that as well once I've added it as the rules require. Discussions of the article don't require sourcing, so I'd appreciate it if we could stick with the sourcing in the article itself. If editors are going to revert my changes for technical issues or because they want to preserve a POV, at least the editing practices should be enforced equally and evenhandedly.

This is another red herring trying to shift the burden of proof. WP:BLP requires the removal of such non-sourced material as that the NIPCC was "created by" the SEPP--that was not my decision and the editors on this article don't get to make up rules on the fly to satisfy their POV or their "imho" which is, by definition, a POV. WP:3RR "Exceptions" also indicates such sourcing issues are exempted from the 3RR rule for BLPs and the offending material must be immediately removed (Wiki's emphasis). --John G. Miles (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No its not a red herring. And BLP only says that you should remove contentious material about living persons. What exactly was "contentious" about the origins of NIPCC?

There are 2 ways to look at the sourcing issue, One of them is yours...and you took an assumption here... You assumed that the NIPCC was/is a separate organization without any sourcing at all - thats completely unsourced, and completely without any backing at all, you do not have a copyright or anything to get to that conclusion.

We had been through this before, at the NIPCC articles AfD (article for deletion) review. Where lack of such sources where established, and it was also considered non-controversial that SEPP/Singer was the main source. In such cases as this one - you should insert a {{cn}} tag (which gives), to request sourcing, instead of deleting or replacing with speculation (such as the existance of an org.). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, it appears you haven't bothered to read what I have previously written--I didn't care about the claim being made, I didn't know one way or the other, so I just followed sources to see if it was the case (I really was interested). Absolutely no "assumption" was made & I made absolutely no claim about NIPCC in the article which is why your asking me to source my comments in the talk pages was a red herring. In any case, BLP and other policy is excruciatingly clear--source every claim, especially when it is as substantive as this one was.

But it was when the tag-teaming started to keep any changes out that made the "controversy" very evident. But that in itself is a red herring. Wiki simply requires all claims be verifiably sourced, especially for BLPs, controversial or not (you can read a quote from the BLP policy below if you don't like reading Wiki policy pages for yourself). This is a discussion going nowhere quickly, so again I'm glad to give you the last word. --John G. Miles (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked the sourcing on the SEPP's involvement with the NIPCC and thank those who tracked it down. If any clarification is needed later (on this & added NPICC material), I'll reword it appropriately to try to keep it as neutral as possible. I think I've just been through what I'd call a big POV "pushback" which did not respect BLP rules.

I'll still insist on sourcing for calling Newsmax "conservative"--problem is, "conservative" is not necessarily the same thing as "libertarian," and they also contribute. "Liberal" POVs have also been expressed on the site on certain issues. --John G. Miles (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone claim that its libertarian? But if you want a source for conservative, then it has been pointed out to you several times. Why is this controversial? Is there something wrong with conservative media? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Newsmax articles themselves are quite neutral. Most of the pundits are conservative, but others take an explicitly libertarian viewpoint, which includes liberal social views (I did read some of the pundits), so the label was/is misleading.

Labels are, per se, POVs. They are also usually meant to immediately diminish a claim or source in the eyes of those who don't share that particular POV label. I was satisfied with letting the reader decide. Your and others' absolute insistence that it be included indicated it was controversial to me and was there for a POV reason & needed to be sourced (I still haven't followed up on it to make sure it is representative). I was torn between asking for a source or just adding the "liberal" or "leftist" type labels to other "obvious" organizations/publications. I decided it was best to keep my labels out of it by choosing Wiki's NPOV "source it" policy. Having perused the history of edits before contributing, I could tell how absolutely POVish those who feel they are the guardians of the AGW hypothesis were on this site--not allowing the addition of even single innocuous words to provide NPOV context to another word.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with who carries the burden of proof in an article--it's the person making the claim. It is not unique to Wiki, but is a widely understood principle in any type of commentary or argumentation. Wiki's BLP policy is also explicit about this basic rule: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."

Guess you also missed my comment that I had no problem with the label. Just wanted a consistently applied rule for both sides of an issue. Again, feel free to take the last word. --John G. Miles (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

ABC source

I was going to move the information in my last edit, however it was already mentioned in the article in an alternate section. I could not see any need for it to be in two locations, on top of the fact that its not linked to the NIPCC or any organization. We do not assume what the source says, simply report it. --I Write Stuff (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, never mind, I restored it, since its so obviously talking about NIPCC. I've removed it from the other place William M. Connolley (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not obvious at all, it seems to me -- I previously removed it from that section because it did not even dawn on me that it was referring to the NIPCC when I read the ABC article. I had to think hard to finally figure out how one (who is very familiar with Singer's work) might come to that conclusion when it was returned to that section, but coincidence does not establish cause and effect or linkage to a specific "report" when only a generic "most recent report" is reported in the ABC News source.

It's not obvious at all, it seems to me -- I previously removed it from that section because it did not even dawn on me that it was referring to the NIPCC when I read the ABC article. I had to think hard to finally figure out how one (who is very familiar with Singer's work) might come to that conclusion when it was returned to that section, but coincidence does not establish cause and effect or linkage to a specific "report" when only a generic "most recent report" is reported in the ABC News source.

I find the following issues with the quote:

• Reference material must be verifiable, especially to layman looking for confirmation, according to Wiki policies. Being "obvious" to a particular editor is not a basis for inclusion--"obvious" is explicitly POV. This article does not verify that it has anything to do with the NIPCC. Singer writes numerous reports on all kinds of subjects frequently and even concurrently.
• This is specifically an effort to "do harm" to Singer's reputation--both the article's entry and even the the material used as its source as well, in clear and direct violation of WP:BLP policy.
• The NIPCC "Summary for Policymakers" (SFP) is not "Singer's report." He is the editor of the Summary, meaning the report represents the collaboration of many other scientists involved in the conference.
• Even if one were to assume that the ABC News article's unspecified report did refer to The NIPCC SFP, the fact that it includes peer reviewed science, just as the IPCC Summary, makes the claim that it was "fabricated" absolutely as ludicrous as to claim the IPCC's SFP was fabricated.
• Claiming Singer is lying ("fabricated") would be an egregious breach of WP:BLP policy, and requires the material be deleted immediately.
• There is no evidence that the unnamed scientists are passing a scientific judgment. Given the peer reviewed science (if they were referring to the NIPCC SFP) makes it clear that the comments that Singer is lying are the opinions of scientists, not scientific opinion.

With the issues above, the entry into Singer's BLP is, if we ignore everything else including it's blatently POV nature, at the very least "poorly sourced." If one has to do mental gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion that ABC's unspecified "report" is specifically the NIPCC panel's Summary for Policymakers, the following is given as the action to be taken according to Wiki's Template:Fact#Contraindications:

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately. Do not tag it; remove it." [bold in original, italics mine]

The WP:BLP policy page states up front that

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons -- whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable -- should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

BLP policy, under its "Sources: Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" clearly states that "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is ... a conjectural interpretation of a source." [emphasis mine] Conjectural interpretation violates Wiki's "original research" policy. Mr Connolley has done just that.

According to Wiki's "Avoiding Harm" policy, entries, especially when not adequately sourced, are subject to the following policy:

"An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm.' " [emphasis in original]

It also violates the "Avoiding Harm" inclusion test as well:

• It has not "appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time;"

• "Unconfirmed allegations may only be included in Wikipedia where they have already been widely publicised by the mainstream news media."

Singer's having lied about or fabricated any report clearly do not meet these criteria.

Finally, the source for the claim that Singer is lying ("fabricated"), is itself a very biased POV piece and violates Wiki's WP:VERIFY policy. Specifically, it does not meet the requirements of Wiki's "Exceptional Claims" verifiability policy:

"Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons...."

I had tried to compromise by simply moving it do a separate and completely appropriate section. I should have, per policy, deleted it from the start. I belatedly do so. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You are abusing BLP for your own ends. Many people have accused Singer of fabricating things, or indeed of lying. The claim is far from exceptional. Thats just his reputation. The source is reliable William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have supported what I have done with explicit and lengthy reference to Wiki policies. I not only make good faith efforts to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia, I take a substantial amount of time to demonstrate it. Furthermore, I requested in my edit comment that if people still disagreed with the deletion after reading the policies that we could take it to WP:BLP/N and you could easily have done so or asked me to do so. As admin, it seems you would be encouraging civil discourse and non-punitive efforts to resolve the situation as I had just proposed, with especial efforts to keep things NPOV -- "[F]abricating...[L]ying.... That's just his reputation" seems to indicate otherwise. Regardless, I'll try to stick with all 5 Wiki "Pillars", including the one to "[b]e bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles." --John G. Miles (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You are confused. We do not claim that Singer fabricated, we report the reliable fact that others claimed this. And, because this looks a bit unclear above, no-one has been able to find a full NIPCC report. As far as I and apparently everyone who has looked can tell, there is only the NIPCC SPM, not a full report (maybe add "yet" to be generous, but I have my doubts). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have supported what I have done with explicit and lengthy reference to Wiki policies - indeed; but long tedious policy-quoting is rarely a good sign and rarely works. Furthermore, I requested in my edit comment that if people still disagreed with the deletion after reading the policies that we could take it to WP:BLP/N - and of course I ignored you. Take your own advice if you like, but don't try to put the onus on the other side, its very impolite. I not only make good faith efforts to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia - and the rest of us don't? Please don't patronise us with this stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"long tedious policy-quoting is rarely a good sign" -- I completely disagree. When it makes clear all the issues present, it makes POV efforts all the more obvious, and it reflects a good faith effort to make it exactly clear where I'm coming from, which is what I'm "working for." But I can see how one might call clear documentation "patronizing" when it makes obvious the untenebility of their own position. Also, I wasn't trying to put the onus on anybody--I was simply making clear that there were avenues for us all to continue the discussion in a civil manner, rather than becoming insulting and punitive in tone. You need to quit reading your own animus into other's comments and taking the "patronizing" view that others need to be obsequious to your preferences. If you don't like the way I write, you'll just have to get used to it. You appear to regard your position as giving you a little fiefdom here, including the right to tell others what they can and cannot say in a discussion. As far as that goes for me, you'll just need to get over it. --John G. Miles (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Where the ABC source should be located

I do not begrudge the fact that Mr. Connolley carries very strong (and, given his comments above, no doubt demeaning) personal views regarding Dr. Singer--strong views are usually held by everyone. It's only when those views make us intolerant of other viewpoints to the point of ignoring Wiki policies (as discussed by me above) and insisting on undermining its NPOV policy by enforcing that viewpoint on a particular article--in this case Dr. Singer's BLP--that it becomes a real problem, especially as an administrator of the BLP of the very person he holds in such low regard.

For the purpose of helping me understand your insistence (Mr. Connolley) that Dr. Singer be deliberately and personally maligned in his BLP, let me simplify things and concentrate only on where the entry in question should be placed in Singer's article. We can then go on to discuss the other issues later.

The policy: Under Wiki's "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" policy, "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is ... a conjectural interpretation of a source." Conjectural interpretation violates Wiki's "original research" policy.

My question: How does the citation itself [34] support placing it under the NIPCC subheading, especially given Wiki's specific policy injunction against conjecturally interpreting such sources (please be specific and refer to the citation's NIPCC reference)? --John G. Miles (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to use titles, get them correct. I've got a doctorate. I suspect Singer is entitled to a courtesy "Prof", if you're feeling courteous. But its better to simply omit them William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'll use titles as I feel they are appropriate. I prefer using the title that indicates the education received, not the teaching position one holds. I'll take your comment seriously when styleguides require it, but my guess is that Dr. Singer prefers "Dr." to "liar" as a term of respect. I certainly see no need to avoid efforts to treat others with respect, though I do see why you might prefer it be omitted in this particular case. And as for your education, I'm not sure if you're seeking congratulations or intimidation. In my own doctoral studies, I came to understand how I had previously made far too great an assumption of the knowledge it seemed to imply was conferred as opposed to the reality that it is still quite a basic and superficial understanding one was left with that only experience and personal research can rectify. And even then, all that is adequate only if one is capable of maintaining the personal honesty and integrity to remain objective and open to other points of view in order to avoid science-as-theology where the science dies as soon as the perpetual skepticism with which current theory is viewed is discarded. It is the only thing that propels further discovery. --John G. Miles (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you please help me understand where your coming from here? I'll repeat my question above for convenience:

How does the citation itself [35] support placing it under the NIPCC subheading, especially given Wiki's specific policy injunction against conjecturally interpreting such sources (please be specific as to how you get to the NIPCC and why it is not conjectural)? --John G. Miles (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unstoppable Singer

We currently quote:

The scientific world had known about the sunspot connection to Earth’s climate for some 400 years. British astronomer William Herschel claimed in 1801 that he could forecast wheat prices by sunspot numbers, because wheat crops were often poor when sunspots (and thus solar activity) were low. Not only did the Maunder minimum (1645-1715) coincide with the coldest period of the Little Ice Age, the Spörer Minimum (1450–1543) aligned with the second-coldest phase of that period.[27][28]

This is a bit weird, in that its not talking about GW. There must be something a bit stronger in the book... "GW is nothing to do with humans its all..." or whatever William M. Connolley (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't an effort to get one's personal viewpoint, as to what a living person's position is, more strongly worded represent an effort to push POV? The entry you cite, moreover, certainly represents Singer's view of what is one (if not the) significant mover of GW. --John G. Miles (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It doesn't. It doesn't say anything about what Singer thinks is causing GW William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I meant that the quote does represent what Singer thinks is a significant mover of GW, not that the quote itself states so. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The para is introduced with Singer has emphasized natural factors over anthropogenic causes to explain global warming. Singer wrote: but it doesn't do that. The para *doesn't* say that sunspots or whatever are causing the current GW. Its also utter b*ll*cks, of course: 400 years ago there were no good climate records, so it wasn't possible to connect them to sunspot numbers (which also weren't recorded until... whenever. I suspect it started around 400 years ago). This page is really far too kind to Singer, who is full of twaddle William M. Connolley (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, you're familiar with proxy reconstruction as a way to research the effects between solar activity (which includes much more than just sunspots as a measure of solar output and coronal mass ejections/solar wind) and climate, just as Mann et al. did for temperature only (or at least tried to do). There are still very interesting peer-reviewed papers coming out and I do take them seriously. But all that's besides the point. I do agree with the fact that the quote was an awkward one, but still wanted to try to understand how POV/NPOV issues are to be handled if anyone cared to explain how the request wasn't a POV approach to editing. Oh, and you'll have to define twaddle for me (just kidding--I already understand how you personally view Singer, but hopefully we can get past that for NPOVs sake). A man with his long history of distinquished positions held, peer-reviewed research published, and other continuing contributions certainly deserves to be presented fairly, and not from a "there-is-no-debate-and-I'm-gonna-prove-even-if-by-defamation-and-insinuation" POV. --John G. Miles (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a far better quote just at the top of the source, so I've swapped that in instead William M. Connolley (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard not to see as disruptive.....

These requests for citations are rather difficult to see as non-disruptive:

Singer has also worked with organizations having some overlapping views, such as the Independent Institute, the American Council on Science and Health, Frontiers of Freedom[36], the Marshall Institute, and the National Center for Policy Analysis.

"worked with" is rather obvious - since you do not get to become a fellow without doing some work for them. Its also rather obvious that they have overlapping views, since they a) make him a fellow or staff b) let him publish on their website. Can we please get real? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I discussed this with with Mr. Schmidt on his talk page and he was okay with it. Feel free to take a peek. If you still have questions, please get back to me and we can discuss it civilly. Seeking adherence to Wiki policies is never disruptive. However, your continual reverts of my (evenhanded, as best as I can try) edits from TW is simply an effort to ensure the article remain outside of WP policies and actually is disruptive. You can always contact me on my talk page to avoid coming to premature conclusions. The citations were requested for claims made that would have required original research otherwise. "Getting real" would be to simply leave efforts alone that seek to stay in compliance, as best as possible, with WP policies, especially as they relate to BLPs. It would also be Wiki-appropriate to assume good faith. --John G. Miles (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AAGF William M. Connolley (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone's efforts "disruptive," without ever contacting them (either in their personal talk page or here) to try to understand why the edits made were made, is not "egregious?" It's late so I'll address KDP's issues below later. --John G. Miles (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would any of us follow the discussions on Mr. Schmidt's talk page? This is the talk page for this article - address the issues here. And frankly by looking at the "discussion" - i can't see that you've discussed those particular citation insertions. If you are going to mark for broken links or incomplete links - then mark that... Not selective places in the text, that is directly contradicted by links that do work. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And to address your comment on BLP. What exactly is problematic with the current version? Is there anything contentious about it? Anything controversial? Is there anything suggested or implied with the paragraph, that might make Singer look bad/less good/better? Is there significant POV implied? If not - then its not an overwhelming BLP problem. Things are not black and white - sentences that are non-controversial do not have to be cited. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please address whatever concerns you have here. So that people can address them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul's Edict

As is his usual practice, Raul has simply reverted my latest edit without any commentary here. The new part is his issuing of threats on my talk page (also sans any discussion of the rationale for his actions) to try and intimidate me, see User_talk:GoRight#Solomon.27s_article_on_the_Singer_article. No explanation. No discussion. Just straight from the first deletion to threats of blocking.

I have posted an extensive examination of the applicability of National Post and Lawrence Solomon to BLPs in general at Talk:William_Connolley#WP:REDFLAG. I am including it here by reference so as to avoid the duplication. If anyone disagrees with that analysis I invite them to actually engage in the discussion thereof rather than trying to assert your POV through pocket vetos. In the absence of explicitly stated dissent, I will continue to be WP:BOLD.

Now, to the specifics of my latest edit. Given its obvious relevancy to the subject of the article, namely Singer, and consistent with the specific criteria for BLP sources at Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources, I propose that we add the following to the article:

In an opinion piece for the National Post, Lawrence Solomon alleges that Singer is "relentlessly smeared" by his critics on his Wikipedia biography.

with the following citation:

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

The piece is an Op/Ed that was published in a WP:RS, which specifically means the following:

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.

Note that the above text clearly attributes the allegations (opinions) to Solomon, as required, even though the content is not contentious from the point of view of the subject of the article.

And for those who wish to, incorrectly, consider this piece to be from a blog Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources provides:

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested...").

Errm, well, obviously I'm not going to be neutral on this. It does seems to me that LS's blog posting, which you're using as a source, is an appalling piece of cr*p (and obviously so), and you're only damaging Singer by trying to include it. As an aside, there are two errors in the second sentence, but we're not talking high quality journalism here so I'm not sure thats a major criticism. Singer is only being used in that article as cannon-fodder. The entire piece only serves to make LS look like a fool, and wiki shouldn't be using it as a RS for anything else. As you quote: these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control - LS is *not* a professional, and that piece was clearly not subject to full ed control. So on your own terms, its not acceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) LS is a professional, he is employed by the National Post for his services.

(2) The piece being referenced is a full fledged Op/Ed, not a blog entry as you all keep trying to call it so it sounds less credible and easier to attack (see straw man).

(3) The National Post has an editorial staff ([[37]]) who, presumably, exercise oversight on the Op/Ed section of the paper as is customary.

(4) The "FP Comment" section of the paper's "blog" has a dedicated editor, Terence Corcoran who, I assume, does that things that editors do. From the "FP Comment" description at [38] we find: "Editor Terence Corcoran and contributors Peter Foster, Lawrence Solomon and William Watson have taken the most talked-about page in Canadian business journalism and put it online."

So with all due respect, your assertions don't seem to match the facts in this case. --GoRight (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

External links

I removed two, one was a self published piece and the other was a google search compilation. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Lancaster bit does not have a proper source, so consistent with WP:BLP please do not re-add this unsourced and contentious material. If you can find a reliable source that Lancaster has resumed making these allegations then fine, but in his retraction he explicitly agrees to NOT make these allegations in the future. That raises a WP:REDFLAG for me as to whether the previously cited website is even FROM Lancaster. So again, unless you can substantiate that Lancaster is actually behind these latest allegations I would argue that the material is inappropriate. --GoRight (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am only including the discussion of Lancaster and his subsequent retraction because it was there previously. I have made it as neutral as possible while remaining consistent with the material presented in the source. Personally, I would prefer to remove the reference to Lancaster since we no longer have any substantiation that he has, in fact, resumed the allegations. This makes the Lancaster reference a bit gratuitous, IMHO.

Feel free to remove the sentence discussing Lancaster if you agree, but please leave the Hoover Press reference as it is notable not only because of its topic but because it also relates to attempts by Al Gore to suppress dissenting science. Perhaps I should visit Al Gore's page? --GoRight (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Fred_Singer_-_Item_2

OK, I have spent more than a reasonable amount of time trying to verify this "Astronomics Magazine" hard-copy reference. I cannot find any reliable substantiation of what Fred Singer might, or might not, have said in this article. Per WP:VERIFY, which reads in part "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." I am one such reader and I have been unable to verify this material. Also per WP:VERIFY, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.". Lest I be accused by certain parties of edit warring on this issue, I remind them of Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material which states "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy."

I am removing the material until a WP:RS AND WP:VERIFY source can be found. --GoRight (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We've had this particular article verified earlier.(check with Raul) There is no requirement that sources need to be online. Check your local library. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See "Moons of Mars" above. Raul may still have the PDF, if you are too lazy to request an interlibrary loan yourself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The 1960 volume of Astronautics (ISSN 0096-669X), published by the now-defunct American Rocket Society, is no longer held by many libraries. You can still find copies at Princeton University and M.I.T. It's not clear that all editors have ready access to interlibrary loans or even know of them. It's also unclear what the fees might be to editors not affiliated with major research institution that subsidize journal article requests. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As seen in Talk:Fred_Singer#Moons_of_Mars above. The verification of this source, has already been done. Perhaps Raul still has the PDF? Has anyone bothered to check? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note that interlibrary loan is potentially necessary for a large number of sources. It also is cheap, at least in my experience (free at my university library, single-digit Euro/DM/$ fees otherwise). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on this subthread should take place at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Fred_Singer_-_Item_2 which, as I indicate there, I had created before seeing KDP's pointer. My purpose was simply to follow the recommended dispute resultion process found in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material.

I will endeavor to verify the link via an interlibrary loan program if I can get access to one. I will accept this as a valid mechanism if it can be independently verified. Oh, and lest you think I am being unfair to you in asking for specific instructions, let me remind you of the extent to which I was being cooperative, [39], when the tables were reversed so to speak. Note also that I didn't call anyone "lazy". --GoRight (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Why is wikipedia being used as a soapbox for this person's obscure beliefs about Martians? There needs to be a secondary source to show this is notable. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't say he believed in Martians - read the big if bit, he was correct - the observations were in error. Vsmith (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with WP:SOAP. Find a secondary ref. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is nothing to do with soap. Why are you removing it? William M. Connolley (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you can't rely on primary source here. This is a BLP issue and is not subject to 3RR. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not: propaganda, an opinion piece, self-promotion, or advertizing, see WP:SOAP. It references an incident from a half century ago wherein Singer supported another's comment regarding possible alien control of Phobos due to observation problems. He recognized the problem that if the observations were correct, then something was weird - he was not promoting a belief in Martians as some seem to want to suggest. And to his credit, the observations were in error. I would say this reflects positively on his reasoning at the time. It is not a suggestion as some commentators want to infer, that he believed in aliens. Just why K objects seems rather obscure - it is not an attack nor a negative comment regarding Singer. Vsmith (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Positive or negative, we're not allowed to dredge through everything someone has ever written and pick and choose certain comments to include in their biography without a secondary source. That's advocacy, a form of soapboxing. If these views are notable, then it should be possible to find such a source. If they aren't notable, they don't belong here. -- Kendrick7^talk 12:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Astronautics Article in Further Reading Section

This reference is clearly worded so as to leave the reader with the impression that Singer believed in martians. Given that this particular reference is already discussed in detail in the body of the article why do we need a POV pushing second reference here, especially in light of the level of effort it apparently requires to obtain a copy of the article in the first place. This second reference is clearly WP:UNDUE even if we accept the validity of the reference above since this whole topic is clearly just trivia with respect to Singer in the first place.

I'm not going to revert it again, but can someone please please just remove the further reading reference and let the content in the body above resolve this issue? I am minimally satisfied with the current description there, [40], although I would obviously still like to see Singer's direct statement on his lack of belief in martians included there. --GoRight (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Did Singer once entertain the possibility that there could be Martians? Yes. And he wasn't alone, several very very intelligent scientists and other people thought that this possibility existed. What is the POV in that? Do you think it was ridiculous at the time? (hint: No).

You can't evaluate scientific opinion or possibilities from 50 or more years ago on the basis of the knowledge that we have today. We are not rewriting history here, because you do not like the way that it sounds today. And since its apparently (you amongst others have made it so) is a contentious fact - more than one reference is needed.

Does Singer believe in Martians today - i frankly doubt that he believed it at the time, but the possibility was there. A question such as the one that Mr. Solomon claims to have asked Singer is irrelevant, and it doesn't answer any questions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You are just being unbelievably stubborn at this point. Is this point contentious or not? You seem to be arguing both sides of that coin. On the one hand you argue that it is NOT contentious so there should be no reason to object to this wording, but on the other you are NOW arguing that it IS contentious and so this reference is somehow needed for balance. An obscure reference in a Further Reading section is needed for balance.

Setting the entire LS discussion aside for the moment, you are perfectly aware that it is common practice to consolidate material into one place in the article and the normal rationale is WP:UNDUE. So regardless of your personal objections to my personal opinions on the subject, why should this reference not be removed because of its obvious redundancy? --GoRight (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on GoRight's behavior at Wikipedia:Requests for Comments/GoRight. Raul654 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Edits

I have removed the extra reference to the Astronautics article in the "Further Reading" section, as I agree with GoRight that it was unnecessary given the coverage in the body of the article and the fact that it was already covered by a reference.

I have also removed the "frequent contributor to NewsMax" claim, since it is unsupported (though, if sources can be supplied I would have no problem adding it back in). And I consolidated the Singer "skepticism" text in the intro to one concise paragraph to avoid the repetition and rambling that existed before. Nothing substantial was removed in that consolidation.

The sole remaining point of contention seems to be Singer's denial of a belief in Martians as recently quoted by Solomon. I see no fundamental problem with including his denial sourced to Solomon, but others have removed it. Is there a specific reason why it should be removed? I'm not entirely convinced it needs to be there, but I see no reason not to include it either. ATren (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

About NewsMax, the only article I could find actually authored by Singer is this. It appears he may have been interviewed a few times by other writers on the site, and he's referenced in many articles, but I agree with your edit. One article != frequent. Jason Patton (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

About the Martians: As explained on my talk page (User talk:Stephan Schulz#Singer_Edits, Solomon builds a straw man and demolishes it. How is that straw man relevant or notable? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In 1960, believing in Martians was not a big deal. But 50 years later, scientific study and pop culture refs (see, e.g. Mars Attacks!) have made the term "Martian" almost comical. Even the person who added it concedes that it's "embarassing", even though it's only really embarassing when you look at it from the context of 2008. (The fact that Connolley insisted that the "embarassing" claim be made more prominent in the article is more to be concerned about, BTW. No editor should be making an effort to embarass ideological opponents - but that's another whole can of worms that I prefer not to open at this time).

So I guess the point is, we have to be careful to word this in a way that's not embarrassing. That's what I've attempted to do. ATren (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

At the signficant risk of causing it to be reverted, I find the latest version ([41]) to be much more acceptable from a WP:NPOV point of view. Thanks for your effort here. --GoRight (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Heritage

How do we know that Singer is jewish? I didn't see anything in the article about it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Categories must be supported in the text. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, someone keeps adding it and it shouldn't be here without supporting text and sources. ATren (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible confusion with another Fred Singer, a Jewish history professor.[[42]]Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

20k?

I'm puzzled by [43]. Why is it unsourced? I can read it on the memo William M. Connolley (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You cannot analyse a primary source and use that for justification to source a highly-insulting (to the subject) statement. Because interpretations and analyses vary in this situation, it crosses the line into original research. If you can find multiple references of the highest reliability which analyse that memorandum and come to the same conclusion, I would be happy to readd it with a qualified wording (ie. "the Source I and Source II reported that X" etc.). Daniel (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that reading something is "analysing it". The only concern I have is whether it is conceivable that the note is a forgery. I am amused that he is insulted though: has he said so? Presuming no forgery at least conscience is a good sign. --BozMo talk 09:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

From recollection the term "forgery" or, at least, "misrepresentation" was used on occasion. I tend to support that a primary source isn't good here, given WP:BLP requires immaculate referencing for contentious statements about living people. Daniel (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Cabal rides again

• Murphy's blog complaining that The Cabal is maintaining a bad page over at Global warming, and also complaining that this page is a smear campaign.

--Slashme (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco Industry List

The section on the "Publication on health effects of tobacco" contains the following sentence:

Singer also appeared on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces defending the industry’s views.

which is cites to: "Junking Science to Promote Tobacco" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-02-26.

The reference does make the claim listed on page 1747 of the document which in turn cites the following:

39. APCO Associates Inc. Memorandum from T. Hockaday to Ellen Merlo et al. Re: opinion editorials on indoor air quality and junk science. March 8, 1993. Available at: http://www.pmdocs.com. Document no. 2021178205. Accessed February 26, 2001.

which is available on-line here: Document no. 2021178205.

When one reads the original source document, however, one is NOT presented with "a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces defending the industry’s views." One finds instead a garden variety internal memorandum which states, in part:

As you know, we have been working with Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ), respectively. Attached you will find copies of the junk science and IAQ articles which have been approved by Drs. Singer and Lee.

The current text clearly distorts the true nature of the original source in such a way as to mislead the reader into thinking that that there was some approved tobacco industry list of go to people for op-ed pieces defending the industry's views and Singer was on that list, when clearly the original source supports no such contention.

As a result I consider the existing text to not be WP:NPOV compliant. I would seek either of the following options for correcting this:

1. Simply remove the existing text and its reference.
2. Provide additional qualifying text that makes it clear that the existing text is a mischaracterization of the original source.

What do others think? --GoRight (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that same document cache is an Op-Ed by Fred Singer defending the tobacco industry's view that the EPA hadn't proven a link between second-hand smoke and cancer: Washington Times Op Ed. The industry memo is from 1993, and the Op-Ed from 1996. I don't see a problem, but maybe we can add a sentence and a link to the Op Ed.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. I am not claiming that Singer never wrote such a memo. Clearly he did, here's a link to the exact memo discussed in the article already [44]. The problem is the false claim, or at least the unsubstantiated by the cited reference claim, that there was some sort of an industry approved list of people that they would use to write write op-eds to defend themselves. No such list is described in the original document being used to substantiate the claim. In other words, the claim that such a list existed and that Singer was on it is a lie. A complete fabrication.

Does this document, Document no. 2021178205, describe "a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces defending the industry’s views", or not? I don't see how. This is an internal memo from, apparently, APCO Associates Inc. wherein they are discussing the fact that they were "working with" two people, Singer and Lee, who wrote two op-eds, one on junk science and the other on indoor air quality. How does one company working with two people who each wrote an op-ed (maybe for hire, maybe not) become an industry wide list of approved professional obfuscation op-ed writers? Answer: it doesn't. That's the point. --GoRight (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The American Journal of Public Health is not Wikipedia, which means that they do not by necessity need to reference each contended fact that you figure is in it. What's important here is the reliability of the paper, and whether that reliability has sufficient weight to substantiate the claim. And frankly it does. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)