Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:14, 5 July 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lawrence Solomon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Community article probation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lawrence Solomon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Lawrence Solomon (2010-02-13). "Lawrence Solomon: Who am I? According to Misplaced Pages, I'm everything but an environmentalist". National Post. Archived from the original on 2010-02-21. Who am I? Whenever I wonder, I check in on Misplaced Pages, to get the latest surmise. At different times I've been described as a writer, blogger, coffee-shop owner, global warming denier, astroturfer and entrepreneur. One description I haven't usually found on Misplaced Pages, at least not over the last 18 months — is of me as an environmentalist, the only occupation I've continually engaged in over the last 30 years. "Insuffecient evidence to call him environmentalist," explained Raul654, one Wikipedian, in rejecting another Wikipedian's description of me as an environmentalist as inadequate. The rejected Wikipedian had cited references to me as an environmentalist in the Financial Post, The American Spectator, and The Washington Times. {{cite news}}: line feed character in |quote= at position 412 (help) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Canada may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Lawrence_Solomon (talk · contribs) / Solomon, Lawrence Solomon, Lawrence

Green Beanery

This was labelled as Solomon's "business interest" which rather suggested something other than a not-for-profit environmental charity that the Beanery apparently is. Green Beanery Website: about us. I see no evidence presented that conflicts with the Beanery's own mission statement, so I've changed it. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider them to be a disinterested RS? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't, but where is the conflicting evidence? William, please have a look at this: Conservation and environmentalism: an encyclopedia, By Professor Robert Paehlke, pp. 117 here. Please read this, about Canada's Energy Probe. Note the author is a Dr. David Brooks. Who is he? Here is Dr. Brooks' CV. David Brooks is an environmentalist. This is in an encyclopaedia of environmentalism and conservation. And in this encyclopaedia of environmentalism & conservation Energy Probe is shown to be an ENGO (environmental non-governmental organisation). Green Beanery is one of its fund-raising charity vehicles also dedicated to green & fair trade. You finally have to accept that this person is an environmentalist who is skeptical of global warming. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

insert Okay, I see my wording here was definitely confusing. I didn't mean to suggest that the Brooks article mentioned the Green Beanery... Apologies to anyone who misunderstood the point I was making here. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, where did you veer off into me *must* accept him as an enviro? We were talking about sources for the beanery. Your answer "there are no conflicting sources" is obviously inadequate. Your qute Energy Probe is shown to be... looks promising but I can't see where you source it form. Can you be specific? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We only have SPS for the beanery, we both know that. According to the sources we have, the beanery is a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to Fair Trade, green coffee, and environmental policy research (i.e. Probe International). It is wrong, therefore, to have a heading stating, as you did, "business interests" as this would imply the opposite of a not-for-profit organisation. My "quote" in fact was not a quote; it was my interpretation of the article linked above entitled 'Energy Probe', by the environmentalist Dr. David Brooks, in Paehlke's Conservation and environmentalism: An encyclopaedia. In that article, you can read about how Energy Probe is funded. That information, combined with what is found at the beanery website, provides a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that the beanery is an honest charity. It took me about 25 minutes to write this. Next on my list of things to do is to find evidence for Global 2000 thing. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just interjecting, Alex, you should be aware that that "Dr." doesn't impress anyone around here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me second Dr. Boris. --Dr. Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Moi aussi. Meanwhile, if your quote isn't a quote, I can't see what text you are interpreting to say it. Could you quote here the text you are paraphrasing in that way? Though this is beginning to sound suspiciously like OR to me Dr William M. Connolley (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

William, actually I am going to instead assume that you have already in good faith followed the link above. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, followed the link, as I say I can't find it. Now please provide the text as asked William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What confuses me about your link is that it says nothing about Energy Probe being a non-profit organization, which it would have to be for your line of thought to be correct. From your link it looks like the Beanery is a money machine for Energy Probe - not a charity. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - can you please display your doctorate before contributing, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Chopped promotional hype and commercial sales link. Methinks WP:UNDUE covers this. ...and no -- never piled it higher and deeper. Vsmith (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

William, I'd like to make it clear that I regard your sarcasm about my lack of a "doctorate" as insulting and petty. I had referred to Barry Brooks' doctorate out of nothing than innocent respsect to a CV far more impressive than my own. Meanwhile, the beanery website states: "The Green Beanery, a non-profit company that aims to help small coffee farmers in the Third World, has become Canada's newest merchant in specialty green coffee beans." The text that Kim D. Petersen was able to find states that Energy Probe is a ENGO that is 50% funded by donations. It is therefore probable that if the beanery website states it is a non-profit organisation then it is. Your description of the beanery in Solomon's biography as his "business interest" or Vsmith's version "Retail business" are both pejorative & deliberately srepresenting the probable reality that Solomon is in it for the money. You may apologise for your arrogance & insulting behaviour if you like. I have escalated the latest violation of BLP policy by Vsmith that you have incited (having the text edited to imply that Solomon's not-for-profit business is in fact a profit business) to the BLP noticeboard. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

insert I should like to apologise for losing my cool here and misinterpreting William's remark as sarcasm about doctorates. He has assured me that he did not mean it that way. To Vsmith, some of your edit was probably fine with me and it was only the change of the subject heading to "retail business" that I objected to as pejorative. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP?? It is a retail business - the previous ref? link was to the website sales page. Just being retail does not say what the profits are used for, if you wish to add an independent WP:RS stating the motives of the business or where the profits go, be my guest. However, hype and sales pitches aren't reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Boris, "Coffee merchandising" is fine with me. However, the Green Beanery section is in need of a reliable source -- or just remove the section. The coffeegeek.com "press release" seems a bit lacking as an RS and is blatantly promotional. Vsmith (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The big question is, exactly what is wrong with the previous section title, viz. "Green Beanery"? It had the superb advantage that it made no insinuations, one way or the other, and simply introduced the section. I didn't put the material in the article in the first instance; it had been there since I started working on it. Should it be there? I'd say given that the Beanery is a prominent landmark in Toronto and that anyone living in that city would know about it, it seems reasonable that it should stay. If you say "business interests" or "business investments" or "coffee merchandising" or "money-machine", in the context of Solomon's biography, the casual reader thinks "Oh, I see Lawrence Solomon is a businessman & entrepreneur." Indeed, until I investigated, that's what I thought after I read the original, slanderous version of this biography. Now it may be a "retail business" in a sense, but then the World Wide Fund for Nature is also a retail business in a sense. But I regard the money I give to WWF as a charitable donation; if I found out later that WWF was in fact a retail business I would feel conned. Calling the section Solomon's "retail business" and challenging me to prove you wrong later is a violation of the BLP policy. Please note, I am not pushing any POV that beanery is a charity and probably "charity" is the wrong word, anyway. I am simply not accepting that it be labelled pejoratively as Solomon's "business interest." Alex Harvey (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Green Beanery" means nothing to the average reader. "Coffee merchandising" doesn't say anything about whether it's profit or nonprofit. The reader will see "coffee merchandising", read the text and find out what's going on. FWIW I'm affiliated with a charity that sells direct-imported coffee to support school building projects in Uganda. We see nothing shameful about telling people that we "sell coffee." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Coffee merchandising" is a neutral heading. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's all a matter of context, Boris. Having dabbled in acting & screenwriting, the subtext is often everything. But in the hope that we can focus on more important things I'll accept the compromise and mark the BLP issue resolved. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

William, I'd like to make it clear that I regard your sarcasm about my lack of a "doctorate" as insulting and petty. - I was talking to Kim, not you. That's why my comment was indented immeadiately following his. Its the standard convention. I had referred to Barry Brooks' doctorate out of nothing than innocent respsect to a CV far more impressive than my own. - that is very generous of you. Perhaps you might extend the same courtesy to people here William M. Connolley (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Perhaps you might extend the same courtesy to people here ..." - No need since we're all equals here. --Randy in Boise (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary: We're agreed that there are *no* indep sources for the GB; so I think Boris's is fine. Are we all done for this section? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys (talking in general); can we avoid refactoring other's comments and edit warring over it? I know nobody here is the best of friends, but removing someone's comments without their permission generally won't help resolve the argument. If someone's said something that you feel is an attack, ask them to remove it, and/or brush it off and move on. Should they continue, reports can be made as needed to WP:WQA. On the other hand, please avoid making potentially pointed statements, and try to keep to a neutral tone. Try reading through your comments as though someone else was directing them at you; may help, may not. Thanks, guys. Hersfold 00:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I was just browsing and I now wish I hadn't. This section must be worth a grade one Misplaced Pages Bulldust Star. Ombudswiki (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages section

Has a third-party source acknowledged Solomon's criticism of Misplaced Pages's coverage on global warming and other topics? Otherwise it should not be mentioned in the article, per the Verifiability policy and the Reliable sources guideline.--Joshua Issac (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Joshua above. Solomon has written many columns on many things, so why this particular topic is being emphasized here? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Solomon's criticism has been picked up and quoted by another columnist, James Delingpole . I'm not sure that's what we're looking for, really, but it's the only external reference in a newspaper (well, a newspaper blog) that I've seen. --TS 16:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

His criticism has also been picked up now in The American Spectator (Tom Bethell, "Misplaced Pages Meets Its Own Climategate," The American Spectator, December 30, 2009). EastTN (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Solomon's articles are reliable sources for Solomon's opinion on Misplaced Pages. The relevant section from Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources is:

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Misplaced Pages article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion."

The text ("Solomon has also written columns criticizing Misplaced Pages's coverage of global warming and other topics") seems to do a solid job of attributing the material to the Solomon and making it clear that it's Solomon's opinion. That seems to pretty solidly meet the verifiability rules (given these opinion columns, it would pretty hard for anyone to argue that Solomon hasn't ". . . written columns criticizing Misplaced Pages's coverage . . ."). EastTN (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the question we need to consider is whether we're singling out Solomon's coverage of Misplaced Pages simply because we tend to notice his opinions on a subject we're all interested in. This is the essence of self-references to avoid. It's possible for us to react to every mention of Misplaced Pages by giving those references more attention than they merit simply because of our personal biases. I'm undecided on this particular matter, though. A factor that might help me to make up my mind is whether he has ever criticised Misplaced Pages in the past, or if he's just singling us out now because of our coverage of recent events related to global warming. --TS 18:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "recent," but the first of his columns referenced in this article dates to April of 2008, which is more than a year ago. We also have a section on his work related to global warming; his criticism of Misplaced Pages's treatment of global warming is related to his work The Deniers, which is notable and is discussed both in this article and in its own article. Beyond that, we run the risk of making Misplaced Pages look foolish here. Rightly or wrongly, Solomon has repeatedly charged that Misplaced Pages's editorial community is suppressing dissenting views on global warming. There would be a certain implicit irony if we were to then suppress any mention of those charges from the article on Solomon himself. If we're concerned that this doesn't provide a wide enough perspective on Solomon's views, a better approach would be to bring in some other issues on which he has written multiple articles over a period of a year or more. EastTN (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

EL to "Climate doctor" article

The external link to is inappropriate for a number of reasons. The article is already used as an inline reference, so it should not be repeated as an external link (reinforced by WP:ELPOINTS#3). Moreover, the article linked contains materially false accusations against another person, bringing it into conflict with WP:BLP and the Misplaced Pages:EL#What_to_link requirement for factuality repeated in WP:ELNO#2. Also see WP:EL#In_biographies_of_living_people, which stresses the need for compliance with WP:BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. So why didn't you just remove the duplicate link from "External links"? I've done so. The item in question is discussed in context in the article, where the reference contains a http link. --TS 20:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So why didn't you just remove the duplicate link from "External links"? - well, check the history. I did, but was reverted twice. So I decided to discuss the issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The "used as a citation" argument appears to be technically correct, but I would assert that it is rather thin given the manner in which these citations have actually been included. I would argue that the guideline in question assumes that a summary of the content of these references has actually been included in-line in some fashion which is not the case here. The citations are merely used to establish a bare factual statement. So by WP:IAR I would say that unless and until the contents of these citations are actually summarized in-line within the article (as WP:EL clearly assumes) that the use of external links be allowed in this case. --GoRight (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why we need two external links to the same opinion article in a single Misplaced Pages article? If you're arguing that more context is needed, then add more context. Tagging another copy of the link into the external links section adds no context and doesn't explain why it appears twice.

Obviously you do have a reason for wanting to pay extra attention to this article. If so, you should explain--in line, as you put it, why it merits that extra attention. Paying full attention to all of Misplaced Pages's policies, of course. --TS 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Could you explain why we need two external links to the same opinion article in a single Misplaced Pages article?" - What are you talking about. The is only one external link being discussed here. The other is a citation. The two are not duplicates. And as I point out the "used as a citation" argument may be technically true but the spirit of the policy on which you rely assumes that the content of the articles being linked have actually be summarized in some fashion. This is clearly not the case here and so that argument is flawed.

"Paying full attention to all of Misplaced Pages's policies, of course." - I have been as far as I can see. Do you feel I have ignored something? If so, what? --GoRight (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the legitimate content policy points cogently raised by Stephan Shulz and Tony Sidaway, I believe that your editing here is in violation of your topic ban. From Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions,

GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from William Connolley-related pages - this is not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley.

While I wouldn't want to suggest that Lawrence Solomon in his entirety is a William Connolley-related topic, the aspects of his commentary relating to Misplaced Pages almost certainly fit within the topic ban's parameters. Three of the four columns footnoted in Lawrence Solomon#Misplaced Pages mention Connolley multiple times, and one of them (the least factual, and the one under discussion here) deals exclusively with Connolley.

I would strongly encourage you to drop this particular topic, GoRight. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What particular edits are you talking about? I didn't find anything recent from GoRight relating to Connolley. ATren (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding permalink to a for quick reference. --GoRight (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "Climate doctor" is a specific reference to William M. Connolley. I agree with TenOfAllTrades' suggestion dated 03:13, 30 December 2009. --TS 21:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Misplaced Pages community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Please see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Environmentalist (2)

Mr. Connolley, did you notice the new sources that I added to the article? One, independent source calls Mr. Solomon a "leader in the Canadian enviromental movement" and another mentions his advocacy for environmental issues as the director of an environmental organization, and all you can say is, "We've gone over this already?" Please check again what I've added. Cla68 (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revert back to the version before yours. Yes, i did notice the references that you added to the article, and i was rather irritated that not a single one of these had an URL present. Now it took a bit, but since Google is ones friend, i seem to have found them all - and i am not impressed:

1. Solomon has been a member of American Forests, an environmental conservation organization.
   • Is not supported by the reference ()
2. Serving as executive director of the Urban Renaissance Institute, a division of Energy Probe, Solomon has advocated environmental protection, conservation, and safeguards throughout the world community, especially in non-affluent nations.
   • Is referenced to this - which is the National Post, and it is a reply written by Solomon himself. , the quoted text is from the blurb --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)]
3. The Montana Standard described Solomon as "a leader in the Canadian environmental movement since the 1970s."
   • Is referenced to this which is an Op-Ed written by Roberta Stauffer - it is certainly not a reliable source for this claim. (this is the one you chide WMC for btw)
4. Solomon's blog has been used as a source for an article in U.S. News & World Report on carbon emissions reduction legislation.
   • Is referenced to this, which is a blog that contains one paragraph linking to a Solomon article. It is certainly not an article.

All in all: Misrepresentation of sources - stating things not in the sources.... If i had been the suspecious kind, i would have suspected that the missing URL's were deliberate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Google is not our friend, because what it brings up is not necessarily what was originally written. I got those references from Infotrac which posts those articles in their entirety, not abbreviated versions which you found through Google. The American Forest ref states clearly in InfoTrac that Solomons was a member. The American Intelligence Wire is the original of the truncated National Post article that you found. The Montana Standard article is an independent opinion on his role in the Canadian environmentalist movement, you give no reason as to why it isn't a reliable source. Infotrac made no differentiation as to whether the US News article was a blog or not, it gave it as a reliable source, which it must be since it carries the name of the main publication. That's why it pays to pay for access to academic databases, because if you rely on Google, and most scholars would, I believe, agree, you're going to get bitten by it. Now, people are going to have choose which of us two to believe. You, with whatever Google offers, or me, with access to InfoTrac. If you would hop on down to your university library, instead of Googling from the safety and security of wherever you might be sitting at the moment, you might see what I mean. Cla68 (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

One other thing, you wholesale reverted my edits, not just the ones you specifically objected to above, but all of them, including several that you didn't mention here on the talk page. If your reversion was meant to be in good faith, why would you do that? Cla68 (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting again (BLP concerns)

#1 possibly (i will check) #2 sorry but a newswire alone is not adequate sourcing. Can you find someone who actually printed it? (also please quote the context - since it looks like an SPS blurb) . These are the simple ones. Now the really problematic ones:

#3 Is an Opinion article, which is both misattributed (still), and isn't a WP:RS for WP:BLP material. (opinion articles never are)

#4 Is still a serious misatttribution: Not only isn't it an article, but only a blog of exactly one paragraph. You are using it to peacock it into significantly more than it is.

As for wholesale reverting - yes, i do that because this is a BLP article, and ~90% of the content was poorly sourced, and i have serious misgivings about sourcing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Update on #2: This is the entire article, which i quite correctly located to the Financial Post, and which is reprinted on Solomons own site. And i correctly surmised that the quoted text was from Solomons usual blurb in the Financial Post, which has been discussed intesively previously and is no better than a WP:SPS. Newswire merely redistributed the commentary. So it is not a WP:RS for this information. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

@Cla: User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats. Also, I think it is rather early to be flinging accusations of bad faith around. I've reverted back to the "pre-Cla" version, since there is clearly dispute about your additions. If you're prepared to talk here rather than engage in an edit war we should be able to sort this out soon enough William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to think that you've read /Archive_1#Environmentalist. Can you confirm that you had, before posting the above? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I wnat Kim to anwer my qusestion. If his edit was in good faith, why did he wholesale rever all of my sources? Please, Mr. Conelleyy, stand aside until I get an answer. Kim, can you speak for yourself? Cla68 (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a BLP article, if 90% of your contribution is misrepresentation of sources and/or poorly sourced (blogs, and other opinion sources) then it must be reverted. I notice that you haven't addressed a single one of the concerns in your reinsertion of the text. Since you are reopening a contentious subject, which has previously had long discussions, you really should be adressing this on talk first. Notice please: The only issue you've addressed adequately above is the AmFor part. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Several appropriate sources were removed. And if self-references can't be used for anything then I trust you'll get to work on the William Connolley article pronto. Won't be much left. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF - why don't you adress that at that particular article? As for this article, which is what this talk-page is about, could you please address the points i've provided above? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks removed. Vsmith (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have protected the article for one week due to edit warring. Please work it out here. I have also started a thread at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lawrence Solomon to request an outside review of the BLP concerns, as I am not sure that they are sufficient to warrant the risk of potential chilling effects from applying the policy too broadly. If any uninvolved party feels that these concerns should be reversed in this case, please selectively revert through the protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Should be covered by Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am directed here from BLP/N and I'll have to say this particular appeal to the BLP policy is possibly the first time Misplaced Pages has made me laugh since, well, I can't remember. ;-) Anyhow, I agree with 2/0 that there's no BLP issue here, and I support Cla68 & ChildOfMidnight that the new material belongs in the article, and thank Cla68 for finding much of it. It might also add that it's probably a good time to update the lead to explicitly note that Lawrence Solomon is an environmentalist. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree no substantial BLP grounds but have no opinion on the inclusion. --BozMo talk 10:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Could we get back to the sourcing problems, which it seems that no one is willing to answer? BLP btw. is not only for negative information, but applies just as equally to positive, which also seems to be overlooked here. Negative material should be removed on sight, while positive can be discussed, which is the reason that i haven't commented on BLP/N. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon is one of Canada's leading environmentalists his own website one of Canada's leading environmentalists Financial post THE DENIERS—by a world famous environmentalist Richard Vigilante Books renowned Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon American Spectator. How many do you want btw? --mark nutley (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A reliable one would be nice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is the american speccie not a RS? mark nutley (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The American Spectator piece is probably deemed opinion, but what about Cla68's Infotrac piece? KDP hasn't answered that yet. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Which one of the Infotrac's #1 or #2. #1 doesn't say he is an environmentalist, #2 is simply the normal blurb from Solomons' Financial Post column. (Cla68 didn't follow through on his search, i've updated with a link to Solomons own site with the column). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about #1, "Solomon has been a member of American Forests, an environmental conservation organization." You have removed that from the article and told the community that we have to wait for you to go to your library to check it. Have you been the to the library? How long do we all have to wait here? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Say what? Where did "the community" tell you that? It is quite possible that he has been a member of that organization, but that doesn't make him an "environmentalist" , he may just like to read their journal to keep himself up-to-date. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, you have reverted wholesale Cla68's edits, citing the BLP policy, and reverted the above sentence. Cla68 has responded to you above, and shown that you had no good reason to revert his edit. You then admitted, "maybe", and said you would check. Have you checked? Or will you agree that his text should be restored to the article? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, i said "maybe" to one reference, Cla68 could of course speed verify it for us, by taking a screen-shot. The rest of the references are still as bad as before. From what i've seen in the rest of the references, my revert was absolutely correct. If 80% of an edit is bad, then i revert "wholesale". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 does not need to send us a screenshot (although it'd be a good idea if it's possible). If you have concerns about what is actually inside a reference, then you assume it says exactly what Cla68 says it says, or you go off to the library and check it. Either way, it should stay in the article until such time that you come back with some valid reason for why it shouldn't be included. "I don't have access to it" is not a valid reason. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah but that is the problem isn't it. I do have access to it, i've linked it, it doesn't contain what Cla68 says it does - so i assume that it may be in the introduction or blurb of the article. The trouble is that the rest of the references do not contain what Cla68 said they did, so reasonable doubt is a factor here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, do you have access to the full article or don't you? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Random comment: it should be clear that any comment, in any article, which went like "the man was a leader of the environmental movement in the 1970s" would be opinion, regardless of whether the article is titled as an "op-ed" or not. That doesn't mean such information could never be included. The opinion was published and should probably be included, although it could possibly be balanced by other sources which say differently, such as allegations that Solomon was astroturfing, if sources are available. II | (t - c) 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• I don't have access to InfoTrac as I'm currently traveling, but in the meantime I've qualified a few of the statements in a manner which I believe is reasonable. When I return home I will check ProQuest's NewsStand for more information on Solomon, as NewsStand was unavailable (at least, to me) the day I found the information in Infotrac. I still don't understand why Mr. Kim reverted my original addition in its entirety, when he admits that he did not dispute the entirety of what was added. I don't find that behavior to be very helpful or in the spirit of collaboration. More to follow. Cla68 (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• One point of contention here has been whether to label Mr. Solomon as an environmentalist or not. Before getting more involved in this discussion, I decided to ask Mr. Solomon himself about it. I emailed Mr. Solomon today and asked him if he felt that "environmentalist" was an accurate label for him. He replied that he did, in fact, feel that it is an accurate description of him based on his work and advocacy for environmental causes since the 1970s. So, as we proceed on coming to a conclusion on this point we can do so knowing that the article's subject believes himself to be an environmentalist. Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure how much weight a subject's self-evaluation should be given. We wouldn't be surprised to find Sarah Palin considers herself well informed and Vladimir Putin considers himself an exponent of democracy. (But Muhammad Ali really is The Greatest.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Boris, the difference here is that Mr. Solomon is an environmentalist, and the same has been established by a number of routes, e.g. by meeting the reliable sourcing criteria, by showing a large number of opinions of other environmentalists who disagree with Solomon still calling him an environmentalist, by establishment of a majority of Misplaced Pages editors agreeing that Solomon is an environmentalist, by appeals to RS/N, by appeal to Solomon's publicists, and finally by just asking Solomon. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I found one more source of information in NewsStand on Solomon and added it. Again, the source shows that Solomon is actively involved in environmental activism. If no further objections, I'll readd to the article that Solomon is an environmentalist. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, Mr. Solomon has now written an article on our editorial debates about this particular question: Lawrence Solomon (2010-02-13). "Lawrence Solomon: Who am I?". National Post. Retrieved 2010-02-13.

I don't know how this fits in as a potential source, but it's an unusual twist for the subject of an article to be writing about talk page debates over how Misplaced Pages will be describing the subject in that article. EastTN (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a valid source for disputable claims about himself. See Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Further, the FP Comment pages at the National Post are blogs, not newspaper columns, editorials, or reports. Mindmatrix 18:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Blogs on newspapers are reliable sources, As it is in a newspaper which is a wp:rs then it is not self published either mark nutley (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And i just looked at WP:SELFPUB Which clearly states that this can be used mark nutley (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this can be used as a reliable source for Mr. Solomon's statements/views about himself and Misplaced Pages. Honestly, though, I mentioned it more because of the novelty of having the subject of an article break the fourth wall and start using a news outlet to write about the editors who are writing about him.EastTN (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I reverted the anon. Obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And your reasons? It was reliably sourced and true was`nt it? mark nutley (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Err no, it was nonsense. Obviously. If you want to write "LS says that..." then that is fine. But so state that it is true, then obviously a blog posting by him is not sufficient William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Err yes, blogs in newspapers are reliable sources. And wp:selfpub also says it`s allowed, perhaps you should look at the conversation above? mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are reliable to the opinion of the author - nothing more. And thus must be attributed as (for instance) "According to X: Y is Z". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP rules apply here. Mr. Solomon names and criticizes a Misplaced Pages editor by his real name, so I believe that independent reporting by a separate, reliable source would be necessary before adding more detail on Mr. Solomon's allegations. On that note, the editor who Mr. Solomon names probably should be careful to make only noncontroversial edits to this article. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the telegraph has it covered as well Mentions two different editors to kim though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 2010-02-17T08:36:45 (UTC)

Appears that Fleet Street has taken notice, but that's a newspaper blog entry from this past December. BLP rules still apply. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If I could just point out here, it doesn't make a lot of sense to link every single article and blog post that Mr. Solomon has written against Misplaced Pages in its very own section. It looks silly. And it looks even sillier to list every single article but say nothing at all about what he actually said in them. I don't think the criticisms of William M. Connolley should be mentioned in this article, according to our BLP policy, but it is probably appropriate to discuss some of the non-editor specific criticisms he's made. Finally, I would probably wind it back to the most famous articles. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(By the way, I agree with WMC's revert here, even if I strongly disagree with WMC himself making the revert.) Alex Harvey (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Coffee merchandising

Based on Solomon's recent post about his own article, it is clear that he was as flabbergasted as I was that the article presently tries to make Solomon sound like a coffee businessman. Can we just delete this embarrassing, completely irrelevant section from the article now? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The only sources for it apparently are the press release and Solomon's column. I would say either expand it by a couple of sentences and add more clarifying detail from Solomon's commentary, or else delete it. As is it doesn't appear to explain well what's really going on with that enterprise. Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we delete anything sourced only to Solomon? That would appear rather radical. I, personally, don't think he is reliable but I would have thought you would differ William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't personalize content discussions, William, it's not very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Solomon just emailed me and asked me to correct the error about the coffee merchandising. He told me that although the idea was his, Energy Probe Research Foundation is the actual founder and owner of the enterprise. I agree with Alex above that since this section is sourced entirely to a press release, that it would be better to remove it. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A personal email to a Misplaced Pages editor does not satisfy WP:V. I'm not doubting your word here, but to accept such a source sets a very dangerous precedent. 08:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether LS has emailed you or not is irrelevant - you should know that. Nor is there any obvious reason to delete this. I'm baffled as to why this should be either embarassing or irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The source is a press release. So, in BLPs we err on the side of caution. Also, you have a personal conflict with Lawrence Solomon and should not be touching this article. Cla68 (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - but the personal conflict thing is something that you should take up on WP:COIN or WP:ANI - not here.

As for error on the side of caution - what caution is there? Solomon is the director of Green Beanery - is there a problem with that? Is it a contentious item that he is also a coffee marchand? Why? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

William Connolley should not be editing this article, for obvious reasons, just as it wouldn't be a good idea for Solomon to edit William Connolley (not that he has tried to). SlimVirgin 21:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Um. Can you prove that? He certainly writes badly unqualified and malicious articles about WMC in less controlled media. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Struck Neanderthal heritage per offer at . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you want me to prove, or what "badly unqualified" means, or what purpose the "um" is fulfilling. SlimVirgin 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You made a claim: "(not that has tried to )". Do you have any evidence for that or is it just a claim? "Badly unqualified" is a euphemism I use because of my limited vocabulary for smears like this. "Um" is showing my surprise at your comment. Any other questions? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing your point. The only point I wanted to make is that, regardless of any other issue, WMC should not be editing here. SlimVirgin 22:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for clarifying that. May I suggest that if you only want to make one point, and want to avoid confusion, you don't make two or three? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware, I did only make one point, and anyway, Stephan, we're not in kindergarten. Why is it that on the CC articles the same small group of editors is almost always involved in snark or insults of some kind? There are two substantive points in this section: (a) whether an editor with a COI ought to be editing the page, and (b) whether there's a problem with the coffee issue. What's the point of derailing things? SlimVirgin 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could always stop personalising these things and focus on content. That would be a step in the right direction. Guettarda (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Again that is something for other venues - and we are once more loosing sight of what the issue here is: Solomon is the director and founder of a successful (i believe) Coffee merchandize - why is that contentious? Can anyone give a good reason as to why it shouldn't be mentioned in this biography? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to reinstate the removed content if no one is actually going to answer the content question - i've asked it a couple of times now, with no response. Do please try not to personalize it again --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The rationale I used to remove the section was that it was sourced to a press release which Solomon says is inaccurate. We err on the side of caution with BLPs, which in this case is justified because the source (a press release) is not a solid source. Cla68 (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Curious, where does Solomon state that it is inaccurate? (As an aside, this seems like people on both sides are getting a little too prickly about something that is minor and is complimentary to Solomon.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well, the press release is by Green Beanery, and Solomon is listed as the person responsible. This is a good source per WP:SELFPUB. Of course, if the material is wrong, we should not include it. But we do not have any indication that it is wrong (or inaccurate) except for an unverifiable private email. If LS wants it corrected, the proper way of doing this would be via an OTRS request, or simply by issuing a correction to the press release. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In the broader sense I would have no objection to removing the material. But I think we can agree that relying on an email to an individual Misplaced Pages editor is contrary to policy and sets a terrible precedent, yes? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When a BLP tells us something is wrong, we act on that unless we have good reason to believe s/he is mistaken. I suggest looking for recent secondary sources that deal with the issue. SlimVirgin 20:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When a BLP tells us sonething is wrong -- aye, there's the rub. Any Misplaced Pages editor can pop up and say subject X tells them statement Y is wrong. What we need is something verifiable. It could be aa OTRS ticket, or a statement posted to the subject's verifiable web site, or various other things. But an editor's word that he or she received a personal email -- no. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but in the several years I've been editing BLPs I've never known an email from a subject to an editor to be ignored. The people wanting to retain this should find recent, reliable secondary sources for it, because it's not a good idea to rely on primary sources, especially when the subject has indicated they're not quite right. If we find a good secondary source we can then discuss how to handle the material. SlimVirgin 21:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never known an email from a subject to an editor to be ignored. WP:V makes no allowance for such. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear about the point of this exchange. We had an insignificant point in the article sourced to a primary source, which is never a good idea in BLPs, per BLP. The subject has said it's not right. We've therefore removed it, and we can look for a secondary source if anyone wants to retain it, per BLP and V and NOR and best practice and common sense. I don't see the point of the back-and-forth. SlimVirgin 21:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat again: We have in total 3 sources for this, the one in the article, this and this. All of which states that Lawrence Solomon is rather important to this company. Now what exactly is it (again) that is contentious? And what exactly does Solomon say is wrong in the information?

Being a entrepreneur and director of a successful company is contentious? (and/or not important/insignificant in a biography?) Is there a public company register in Canada where we can double verify the infomation? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem using this, which says he was a director as of 2004, but it may not be correct still. Press releases are not a good idea. Why the resistance to finding a secondary source, per BLP? SlimVirgin 22:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Non sequitur. There is no "resistance to finding a secondary source," only a well-justified reluctance to use a purported email to an individual editor as a source. An argument can be made that the original source was inadequate, but personal emails to a wikipedian cannot possibly qualify as reliable sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No one has suggested using the email as a source. SlimVirgin 22:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Presumably then the "email" to which Cla68 refers is something other than an email. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is reliable secondary source:

• "The Bay Street for baristas". National Post. Feb 19, 2008. Retrieved 2010-06-02. It's a research-heavy organization," says Lawrence Solomon, Green Beanery's founder, "and we will provide the consumer with all the info they need to make conscious decisions when buying coffee.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec):Here are two more sources: "is also a director of GreenBeanery.ca" - bio blurb of one of his articles on coffee, "Green Beanery's founder" - a National Post article reprinted on Canada.com. If it's wrong, it's certainly a widely spread meme. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This 2008 article found by Stephan is a secondary source, and it calls Solomon the founder. Solomon himself says he is a director in this 2004 article. Cla, can you say more about what Solomon's objection was? Is it just that it's out of date? SlimVirgin 22:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

He said that he thought that the section gave the impression that he owned the business, which he said is incorrect. He stated that the business is owned by Energy Probe, not him. If reliable secondary sources state that it was founded by him and that he directs it, that appears to be ok. Cla68 (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added the section back in with different wording and a different section title, in an attempt to alleviate Solomon's concerns (which I believe have some merit). ATren (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No connection between Pollution Probe and Energy Probe since 1980.

The article states "He is the founder and managing director of the Energy Probe one of Canada's most prominent environmental agencies, as well as working with its predecessor and sister agency, Pollution Probe."

It is true that Lawrence Solomon worked with Pollution Probe prior to 1981 but Pollution Probe has not been a 'sister agency' to Pollution Probe since that date. The split between Pollution Probe and Energy Probe was adversarial and took place around 1979-1980. Since that time there has been absolutely no connection whatsoever between the two organizations.

Colin Isaacs, Executive Director of Pollution Probe 1982-1989 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.220.121 (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed "sister agency" from the sentence in question. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Lawrence Solomons blog post at nationalpost.com WP:BLP?

This WP:BLPN discussion may be of interest Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:William_Connolley for the writing of this article. Nsaa (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Date and place of birth

I've added an infobox, and I included his date and place of birth because it was in the lead, but I can't find a source. Does anyone know of one? SlimVirgin 20:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the birth year in this edit: I think I found it by calculation from one of the sources available at the time. Sorry - I forgot which one but it probably said something like "LS was born exactly 50 years ago" or whatever, so I subtracted 50 from the publication date. Not sure. Mhym (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mhym, it's best to remove it if we don't have a source for it. Do you have a source for Bucharest? SlimVirgin 21:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Google gave me , which has both date and place, but has no inherent reliability, and a number of other sources obviously or likely copying Misplaced Pages, --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And after some digging, the Australian national library has his birth date as 1948 at . The LOC has him with both 1949 (once) and 1948 (several times). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Environmentalist? Rv: why (2)

Undid revision 371530124 by 69.63.53.25 (talk)Solomon has self-declared in his newspaper column that he is an environmentalist is wrong. Self-descriptions aren't acceptable if contested William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not the only reason. Please look earlier on this page to see where the neutral opinion of an editor from the BLP noticeboard was that Solomon is, indeed, an environmentalist after I introduced new sources describing him as one. I suggest a self-revert. Cla68 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, excellent, once your reasons are pointed out as irreleveant you give them up and reach for new ones. It isn't clear to me why the neutral opinion of *an* editor gets a veto over actions on this page. That isn't the wiki way William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. By the way, aren't you engaged in a personal dispute off-wiki with Mr. Solomon. If so, why are you even touching this article? Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to ban editors from articles, especially when making perfectly valid edits. Verbal chat 11:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla is indulging in "if you can't argue the facts, argue the people". But since I'm *not* involved in an off-wiki conflict with LS, it is irrelevant. Cla, the COI notice board is open to you should you choose to pursue this William M. Connolley (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is this argument going on again? How many times do you guys want to pull the fact that he is an environmentalist? Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon one of Canada's leading environmentalists Seriously why is this being fought over again? mark nutley (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, your first source is an editorial in the MoonieRag. Not a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The moonierag? The Washington Times? Really, how did it get that nickname? CBC source is fine though ain`t it mark nutley (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: New York Times ok, Washington Post ok, but the Washington Times was founded and funded by the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon, better known as "the Moonies". It kind of shows in the quality of the reporting and especially the commentary. The CBC may pass the letter of the law, but it looks like a self-provided mini-bio, so its spirit-of-the-law reliability is at best questionable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt the CBC piece is a self provided bio most large news organizations have stuff pre-prepared for this kinda thing. And as it is a reliable source then were sorted for calling LS what he is, an environmentalist mark nutley (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet I doubt your doubt (and let us not forget your reputation for evaluating sources). Let us compare:

He is author or co-author of seven books, including Energy Shock (Doubleday), In the Name of Progress (Doubleday), Breaking Up Ontario Hydro's Monopoly (Energy Probe), Power at What Cost (Doubleday), Toronto Sprawls (University of Toronto Press) and, most recently, The Deniers (Richard Vigilante Books), which was the No. 1 environmental bestseller in Canada and the U.S. in 2008.

to:

He is author or co-author of seven books, including Energy Shock (Doubleday), In the Name of Progress (Doubleday), Breaking Up Ontario Hydro's Monopoly (Energy Probe), Power at What Cost (Doubleday), Toronto Sprawls (University of Toronto Press) and, most recently, The Deniers (Richard Vigilante Books).

Can you spot the similarity? And the env text is duplicated too William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant, the source is reliable, if they got it from energy probe is beside the point, we use what the sources say. And for you guys to say the founder of canada`s biggest enviro group is not an enviro is beyond parody. And do not lecture me on source evaluation WMC, at least i have never used my websites or my blog as a source in WP mark nutley (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Times fits WP's definition of a reliable source. I've used it many times in articles. Bill Gertz' column, in particular, provides valuable information on defense and military-related topics. As Alex Harvey pointed out above, Solomon is an environmentalist and has been described as so in reliable sources. I'm going to revert it back if no one has done so already. And WMC, you should not be touching this article. Cla68 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see any RS that categorically calls this guy an environmentalist. Verbal chat 20:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources shown on this page, so here choose one of these yourself mark nutley (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, for me that link gives me a grand total of 3 (three) hits, one the WT editorial above, one an editorial in The Metropolitain (whatever that is), and the third an announcement by a talk of Solomon. None of those a reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There's an academic paper about propaganda on Misplaced Pages that calls Solomon an environmentalist. See Oboler, Andre; Steinberg, Gerald; and Stern, Rephael. "The Political Framing of Political NGOs through Criticism Elimination", Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 7(4), 2010. It says: "Entire topic areas can be framed with a particular view by users with knowledge, determination, and power within the system. Environmentalist Lawrence Solomon (2008) explored this in Misplaced Pages articles on global warming and climate change research." SlimVirgin 22:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Metropolitain is a canadian newspaper mark nutley (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation here, there is nothing controversial about calling him an environmentalist, and it's clearly well-sourced. I've restored it. ATren (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate, we have:

1. he self-identifies as an environmentalist,
2. he's been identified by others as an environmentalist in reliable sources,
3. he founded an environmental organization

Are we really still disputing this? Jesus. ATren (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, all of this is still the self-identification problem. As I demonstrated to MN, so-called "RS"'s are simplt repeating LS's characterisation of himself. You can't use throwaway lines for such statements (and that includes SV's paper). And your point 3 is disputable too William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Solomon is also noted as a leading environmentalist This book will do the trick mark nutley (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, will you please spend some time with evaluating your sources? Simply typing search terms into Google (X) is misleading. In this particular case, there is no evidence at all that the terms are used together (indeed, the minimal preview suggests the opposite), and the book is an exceedingly out-of-print college text collection. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephan all the terms are used together see here please Second book in the list printed in 2004 mark nutley (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I don't know what you see there - I get a partial page of an essay by Solomon, with the highlighted term being "Lawence Solomon" identifying him as the author of that piece, and no detailed preview that would even show the term "environmentalist". If you are referring to the blurb on the results page, well, that's another blurb, not a RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Look again Stephan it clearly says Solomon is also noted as a leading environmentalist, and in the late 1970s he was an advisor to President Carter's which is the intro to the essay, it is not a blurb is it mark nutley (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither of us seems to have the actual book. But no, it's an essay by Solomon - unless he is in the habit of referring to himself in the third person, it's not part of the essay, but part of the author blurb. Finally going from a 4 line excerpt is rarely acceptable - maybe it says "Miller raises that absurd claim that..." just before that snippet. In general, looking for sources to support an existing opinion is not useful. You look for sources first and then form your opinion based on what they say. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but this seems to be an issue of User:William M. Connolley carrying an off-wiki dispute onto Misplaced Pages, based on what I'm seeing above. He probably shouldn't be editing this article. Kelly 07:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is my opinion that you are wrong and that trying to force an editor off the page in this way is uncivil. Focus on improving the article please. Verbal chat 07:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's respectfully disagree. Surely if Mr. Connolley is in the right, his opinions will eventually prevail without his personal intervention, based on reliable sources, of course. Kelly 08:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Verbal, and so did WP:COIN when it came up a while ago. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, there are numerous reliable sources who call him an environmentalist, including the academic paper I posted above. So what is the BLP issue? SlimVirgin 08:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• I just added the book ref i found, this should now be the end of this issue mark nutley (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• Actually, they are numerous only if you include very small numerals - unusually small for someone who allegedly has been active as an environmentalist for decades. The paper you found is among the best of the few, however, it only mentions him in passing while referencing one of his atrocious columns (also in passing, but that's neither here nor there). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether it mentions him in passing; it calls him an environmentalist. I'm still curious to know what the BLP issue could be. SlimVirgin 08:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what is the BLP issue? Kelly 08:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

@Kelly: well, if your opinion is correct you too will prevail without you having to talk here. So you could take your own advice William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why take the debate down this tack? I'm an uninvolved editor. I was just commenting on the evidence presented above that you've got some kind of off-wiki dispute with the article subject. I think that's pretty undisputable. I'm just saying you should leave this bio to editors who don't have a dog in the fight. Kelly 10:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate forum for this discussion, take it elsewhere. Verbal chat 10:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And the appropriate forum is....? Kelly 10:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

why take the debate down this tack? - yes - why *did* you take the debate down this track? It doesn't seem at all helpful William M. Connolley (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? If you haven't been involved in an off-wiki dispute with the article subject, then please set me straight if I am mistaken. But I would really prefer to debate the topic with other uninvolved editors rather than get down into some mudslinging ditch. Kelly 10:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Environmentalist"

If Solomon has decided to label himself an "Environmentalist", and reliable sources have called him such, then that's what he is. Nobody owns the definition.

This reminds me of the reaction to Sarah Palin identifying as a feminist. Just because political objectives differ, it doesn't mean the person is not entitled to the identification. Kelly 08:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that when a contentious or self-aggrandizing label stems entirely from self-description we ought not to use it. But in this case we have the CBC and an academic paper. I can see an argument that the former may have deferred to Solomon's description without checking, because it's just a blurb. But with a couple of academics, where the focus is not on Solomon or what he calls himself, we have to assume they were choosing their words carefully. They may not have been, but it's hard to argue otherwise. SlimVirgin 08:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Kelly 08:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody owns the definition - exactly true. In particular, LS doesn't own it, and can't change the meaning by applying it to himself if inappropriate. Or rather, *he* can but we should not follow him William M. Connolley (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So what is the essence of the definition that would allow us to know when it's being used inappropriately? For example, you can't reasonably argue you're a feminist if you don't support equal rights for women. You can't be an animal rights advocate if you think it's sometimes okay to use animals. You're not a vegan if you sometimes enjoy steak and chips. What's the equivalent essence of being an environmentalist? SlimVirgin 09:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you try reading environmentalist? That seems about the right direction. EP seems to be mostly an anti-nuke org William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Being against nuclear war seems kind of environmentalist to me. Kelly 10:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Err, you might want to read up on what is going on. EP is anti-nuke-power, not war. Thought I've seen no indication that they are in favour of nuclear war William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, point granted. Does anti-nuke-power disqualify one from being an environmentalist? Kelly 10:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Energy Probe, a Canadian environmentalist group So your wrong there as well WMc mark nutley (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. But it doesn't necessarily *make* him an env either. It depends on his motives. For example, he might be anti-nuke because he is pro-coal William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain what disqualifies Solomon from being an "environmentalist"? Kelly 10:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC) (see below)

(edit conflict)

WMC what make`s him an enviro are all the sources which have been presented above. So you move onto EP not being an enviro group, yet a link is provided proving you wrong again, and you move onto another strawman argument, just give it up already mark nutley (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could summarize for a simple soul like me. Kelly 10:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for simple explanation

In light of the present dispute, what exactly disqualifies Solomon from being described as an "environmentalist"? Kelly 10:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure "disqualifies" is a good word, but The Deniers is a hint William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather than leaving us clues as though it's a treasure hunt, please tell us why he's not an environmentalist. SlimVirgin 11:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at that page? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC, are you saying that Solomon can't be an environmentalist because he may support contrarian views on the theory of human-caused global warming? If so, do you have a source that backs you up on your definition or is it just your personal opinion? Cla68 (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. But let's compare your reaction to Kelly's Being against nuclear war seems kind of environmentalist to me - here we have someone making a rather vague assertion *in favour* of LS being env, and you've no complaints at all. I certainly think that one can just as well argue that being opposed to the entire theory of GW makes it likely that you aren't an environmentalist. When your opposition to nukes turns out to be because you like coal and the free market, that is evidence in favour William M. Connolley (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If a person spent their whole life doing stuff like defending redwood trees from getting cut down, but thought the idea of man-made global warming was BS, could that person be considered an environmentalist? (no offense intended, just trying to cut to the heart of the dispute) Kelly 12:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC is currently editing. If he doesn't reply to this thread shortly, I think we can consider it closed. Cla68 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with WMC? He isn't the only one objecting. Verbal chat 12:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

@K: could you make up your mind whether you're prepared to talk to me or not? I saw your But I would really prefer to debate the topic with other uninvolved editors rather than get down into some mudslinging ditch and took it as a contemptuous refusal to talk further. was I wrong? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

@Cla: err yes indeed. Could you try to avoid personalising this please William M. Connolley (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC has written about this on his blog

Two years ago, WMC questioned Solomon and Energy Probe on his blog. It is a highly critical post, calling Solomon a "frothing-at-the-mouth GW septic" (note "septic") and Energy Probe "pro-property rights right-wing pro-coal astroturf group". He clearly has a critical opinion on this LP, and he clearly is trying to impose this view here by removing the environmentalist label, which is supported in sources and non-controversial, except to WMC.

This evidence of pushing one's opinion on-wiki would be exhibit "A" in disqualifying any other editor from contributing here, but as we all know the rules are different for WMC and those who support him. This is clearly a COI, clearly a case of someone pushing their POV on wiki, and clearly a BLP violation merely by his presence here editing this article. But nobody stops him, and his friends bully off any opposition. This conflict is a microcosm of the entire history of the CC debate, especially when it comes to BLPs of people who they don't like.

Verbal please specify the reasons for the POV tag, or I will remove it first thing tomorrow. Specifically, you should address my 3 points above: that he self-identifies as one, that others identify him as one in RSs, and that he's founded an organization which reliable sources have described as an environmental group. ATren (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Start-Class Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Canada
• Articles with connected contributors