Talk:Willie Soon/Archive 1

Comment

Just for ref...

>GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L16712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023429, 2005

> >Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal >variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record >of the past 130 years > "This scientific research was supported by generous grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation...."

Grant committees at Harvard and other universities are about as likely to fund research suggesting that global warming is caused by anything other than humans as they are to vote Republican. It is not surprising that Willie Soon sought funding elsewhere.

Only a tiny fraction of climate research funding in the U.S. comes from universities. Most comes from Federal agencies. Are you saying that George Bush's government would refuse to fund a global warming skeptic? Raymond Arritt 22:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical speculation that the Bush admin would fund critics just shows a lot about the person making the comment. This whole wikipedia is just a leftist slanted op-war. The same guys who bring us Google bombing and Daily Kos, and the like.

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 22:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Polar bear section is confusing

Someone else pointed out to me the polar bear section is confusing. In particular, the article appears to suggest the paper didn't necessarily challenge the view that they were threatened but simply suggested there were other factors which were the primary reason they were threatened. If so, this doesn't seem a good reason to delist them (regardless of whether it's global warming, human-bear interactions, being scared of Sarah Palin or whatever, if they are threatened they are threatened surely?). The ref just links to the main page and while I found a direct ref somewhere else, it no longer works. The polar bear article just says "Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said that the listing was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available, a view rejected by polar bear experts" which makes more sense then this article but the ref doesn't work either. Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Added sentence to illustrate that their paper claims no warming. It is the main part of their paper. I should have put it in first time. Polargeo (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also just because there is no link to the actual article the full reference is given to the news story and I can confirm that it backs up the statement. If you can find a new link to the news story then that would be good. Alternatively if you search the Anchorage Daily News (follow the given link) for their archives and pay 2.95 Dollars you can see the article. Polargeo (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but it doesn't really help. Rereading the polar bear article, I think I understand the situation better. It seems that polar bears are protected in the US not primarily because their levels are declining but because of concerns they will be significantly affected by global warming. As I mentioned above, the article is confusing as stands, because it suggests the authors challenged whether or not there has been any warming, but did not challenge the view that polar bears are declining in numbers. Therefore, it seems logical to protect them, regardless or not whether we know the reasons for the decline. However as I mentioned as I now understand it, they are protected partially because of concerns their population will be badly affected by global warming, not simply because of their declining levels which explains why whether or not there has been any warming and whether it would affect them is of relevance to the issue of whether or not they should be protected. While obviously only of secondary relevance to the article, some explaination may be useful since I know I'm not the only one to be confused by this. Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Still active?

I haven't seen anything from soon recently and a google scholar search didn't turn up anything recent apart from [1], which is distinctly minor William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Von Storch Resignation

The article seems to be misquoting the source, when it says Von Storch resigned in protest after the paper. The source says, after the paper, Storch wanted procedural changes to the PR process that the publisher was unwilling to make, so he resigned, which is quite a different thing altogether. Does someone have a source to back up this claim before I delete it?

It seems clear the Goodall resignation was over the paper's publication, so that part doesn't seem to be under dispute. FellGleaming (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Any discussion on this before I remove Von Storch from the list?

FellGleaming (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating the call one last time: Any discussion on this before I remove Von Storch from the list?

FellGleaming (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, this discussion has been open here for 3 days and you haven't participated. The source says that Von Storch resigned, but not over publication of the paper, but rather the publisher's refusal to grant Storch additional authority after the paper was published -- a very different matter. Please discuss here; rather than reverting. FellGleaming (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read von Storchs own description of the event. Von Storch, as the new editor-in-chief, wanted to publish an editorial explaining how S&B demonstrated a failure of the peer-review process. The publisher refused and von Storch resigned. The current formulation is not optimal, but a fair summary of the event. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Von Storch's "own description" is not sourced in the article. Do you have a RS for it? The SOURCE in the article has a very different story:

“ I wanted the editorial by Hans von Storch to be published, but with a green light from the Editorial Board.

Hence I asked Hans not to rush the editorial, to consult with the Editorial Board and to publish a revised version. Hans did not like this and decided to resign only a few days after I had appointed him.

”

FellGleaming (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The man himself: [[2]]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A personal website? I'm sure you realize you can't source a scurrilous claim against a living person with that. Further, it doesn't even support what you're saying. He notes other issues for his resignation, and he doesn't even state explicitly the other resignations were due the paper. FellGleaming (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can use von Storch's blog as a source about himself. Guettarda (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's being used as a source about Soon. Further, Goodall's letter is being used to justify not only her own actions, but those of other people (other editors at the journal). It is her opinion, not fact. These are clear violations of BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user

Being used? Where? I can't find it in the article at all. Can you explain what you mean? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Were you being serious? This is a dicussion about potentially sourcing the von Storch claim within the Soon article. FellGleaming (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And? Von Storch is the most reliable source for why he resigned. Note that this is a claim about von Storch and his motivation, not a claim about Soon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Your source says he resigned to the a) a conflict with the publisher over changing the review process, and b) because he felt other CR editors used "different scales" for different papers. Your synopsis is substantially different from this. FellGleaming (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, your source links to a valid RS in the WSJ that captures the story. Why not use that for a source? What's the fascination with attributing scurrilous BLP material to non-reliable sources? Do you not want readers to trust the article? FellGleaming (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have another RS, then use it. In this case, I have to agree that SS and G, that a claim about vS and why he resigned can be acceptably sourced to his blog, provided it isn't making allegations about some other living person, which it isn't since it's just saying he didn't like the review processes Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

RealClimate Blog as a source

A non-peer reviewed opinion in Realclimate is not a reliable source for rebutting controversial scientific statements. To quote KDP: "A self-published source used to refute a peer-reviewed paper?" Does anyone have a valid, peer-reviewed paper as a source to rebut this? FellGleaming (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Of course it is a reliable source for this. The author is a published expert on this particular topic (see exception clause in WP:SPS), and not only that - he is a co-author to the 13 author paper in AGU. Also please see WP:RSN for the many times that people have claimed that RC isn't a reliable source for climate science (they were (almost) all turned down) - It is being cited for a science description and nothing more. Apparently you don't like it - but that is not an argument. [do note that the rebuttal is in the paper, RC is used for a more popular description of the paper] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS says "self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons", and that they should be "avoided" in all other cases. You are using a SPS to impugn the professional character of two scientists. This is against WP:BLP. FellGleaming (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think referring to the RealClimate website is a bad idea for several reasons. Not least of which is the fact that you could easily refer directly to the Osborn and Briffa paper rather than referring to Mann's view of that paper. Thepm (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

We could refer directly to the two papers - but then we would have to interpret the science ourselves - which in general is a bad idea if you have reliable secondary sources that do this for you. (the 3 prongs would be close to WP:OR then - even though it is the focus of the paper). RC is a reliable source for this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Where you go wrong here - is in stating that this is BLP material - it isn't. Had it been about Soon (the person) as opposed to a description of the science - then RC couldn't be used about this [not here - nor in any other article] - BLP concerns us whenever we are talking about information about living persons - be it in a biography or in any other article on Wikipedia. The reason that we can use RC (and that it is an RS on this) is that they are commenting on the paper - and that the author is a published expert on the subject (he has even published a reply to the paper). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If he's published a reply in a RS, then use the RS. Just do so in a neutral manner. This is an article about Soon, not the place for enormously long rebuttals of his papers. I'm asking you to work with me to find a source that adequately and succinctly summarizes the objections to the paper. A detailed line-by-line exposition of AGW science is not in tone for his biography. FellGleaming (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, there's a serious undue weight issue, when you don't go into any details about the paper's scientific claims...but devote an entire paragraph to claims disputing its conclusions. Not encyclopedic in tone at all.

(edit conflict)You seem to have gotten WP:NPOV wrong. When describing a monority viewpoint the majority viewpoint must be described in a way so that the reader isn't in doubt as to which is which. That is what WP:WEIGHT is about -- proportion of coverage in reliable sources must be followed. And the S&B paper is probably one of the most contentious papers in this topic area. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Quoting directly from undue weight, "...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.". The subject here is Willie Soon. You say nothing whatsoever about what his paper contains, but devote a lengthy segment to rebutting it. This is COATTRACKing. FellGleaming (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Iff you mention the paper in detail - then you have to treat it with NPOV. And that means describing it as reliable source describe it. And that means that we have to mention the rebuttals and the controversy surrounding it. And since Soon is on the minority side - you will have to mention the majority side. Otherwise it would be coatracking (using the Soon biography to present a one-sided picture) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A neutral viewpoint means you find a reliable source that rebuts it, and state the rebuttal. It does not mean you censor the paper's contents, then go into immense detail on claims against it. So far, we don't even have a rebuttal from a RS.. the BLP policy clearly excludes RC in this context. FellGleaming (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you fail to understand both WP:RS (and the WP:SPS exceptions) - as well as what WP:BLP is. Not only that - but you seem to have overlooked that RC is used here to describe the mainstream scientific case on the paper - not their personal opinions of Soon. (the former is allowed usage - the latter wouldn't be) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That speaks to the undue weight issue. You've listed Soon's paper not to provide information about Soon, but simply to use it as a platform to display the mainstream consensus again. A lengthy exposition on AGW science is out of place in this article. FellGleaming (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The single thing Soon is most well known for is the controversy about his papers. He is not well known because his papers are considered great scientific papers but because of errors in them. Therefore reflecting this in the article is in no way undue weight, it is the correct weight. A BLP is not the same thing as a CV. We should always give more weight to what an individual is notable for albeit in a balanced way. However, if mainstream scientific opinion on his papers is balanced against his work we should not go over the top to try to neutralise the language because in effect wikipedia would be showing a bias towards the individual's POV in doing so. Polargeo (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a source showing "Soon is well known for errors in his papers", then please present it in the article. FellGleaming (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the biggest news story about Soon? Why is he notable? The answer is extremely simple the controversy over the errors from his papers. Polargeo (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can establish he is notable for his impeccable climate science then please go ahead and find the sources for this. Polargeo (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. If you don't feel Soon is notable, you can nominate the article for deletion. Claiming he's known only as a bumbling incompetent, though, is something that must be extremely well sourced if you want that viewpoint in a BLP. FellGleaming (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You have completely failled to understand what I have said. Polargeo (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat myself. The thing that made him famous is a totally discredited paper. Now I know the climate change denial literature continually brings this study up as if it is still valid but it has been utterly discredited in serious scientific literature and the fact that it was published at all lead to resignations. This article, BLP or not, should accurately reflect that fact and not pander to the continual ignorance of this fact in the global warming denial literature and low level journalism. Polargeo (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) "This article, BLP or not, should accurately reflect that fact...". That sounds like a tacit admission you're using the article for a COATRACK. Nothing takes precedence over BLP violations, period. FellGleaming (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

ADN source

The Anchorage Daily News source for "Funding and review of Palin-touted study criticized" does not work, and I cannot find it on their site. Does anyone have a RS to back this one up? FellGleaming (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. I can wholeheartedly attest to it. You just have to pay for it if you want to read it. the fact that you have to pay to see the article does not make it any less reliable or valid as a wikipedia source. Polargeo (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay you have to navigate to the news archive search page [3]. Then just enter the correct date and keywords/title and you will be given a short abstrat and a link to log in and pay to view. Polargeo (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing its reliability; I just wanted to verify the story in question existed and was being accurately represented. FellGleaming (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Local library? But probably wont be necessary - since there several articles out there (on Google search for the title and author) that describes it / uses it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Awards and Honors

Whats the rationale for removing this? Such a section is standard for WP biographies. FellGleaming (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You may think it is standard practice but this is not a CV for every minor award he has recieved. Polargeo (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:NPF#People who are relatively unknown Polargeo (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Petr Beckmann award was mentioned before my edits. Do you feel the IEEE award is minor? FellGleaming (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for any award that is not minor then you are free to include it. That is different to a list of minor awards in a CV like fashion. Polargeo (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Collateral damage

I carefully picked through several edits that had removed sources etc rather than reverting and yet this has been undone by one edit from User:FellGleaming which is effectively a revert [4]. Please restore the article to the situation it was in. You have tried to change a long standing article to your own satisfaction and this has been challenged by two editors who have both previously edited the article. You should not force your edits through when discussion is still going on and there is no consensus for your sweeping changes. Polargeo (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing for the RC rebuttal. I'm willing to restore that for now, but its a clear violation of BLP to impugn the professional competence of a scientist using a self-published blog. If you and KDP want to rebut the article, please find a reliable source. FellGleaming (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - but we are not here to rebut anything. But this is the paper that Soon is known for and a mention of this is highly relevant to a biography. We can certainly discuss just what needs to be in the bio, and what shouldn't - but a any presentation of a minority or fringe viewpoint must include a description of the majority view, so that the reader isn't in doubt as to which is which. I have to agree with Polargeo on the "force" issue - the cycle is Bold-Revert-Discuss and discussion is supposed to be until resolved - not just comment-revert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There could be some improvements in the references. The best thing to do may be to directly reference the article Mann cites in the RC article. [5]. Needs some more reading though. Polargeo (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That does not mean remove the RC ref because the RC ref is really just a highly notable scientist summarising the recent research in a plain manner (not someone making it up in a self published blog!). Polargeo (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Turns out the Science (journal) paper completely backs up the RC sourced statement anyway. Can't get a much better source than that to show the consequence of the inaccuracy in Willie Soon's paper. The science paper of Osborn and Briffa references the Soon study and outlines where it was incorrect and how they have come to a different conclusion. Polargeo (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

RC is a self-published source noticeably hostile to the article's subject. It is far from a neutral, reliable source in this particular context. An accurate summary of a paper in Science (which you appear to have found) is certainly fine. Please replace the RC source with it. FellGleaming (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the RC reference as you have requested. I have replaced it by doubling up the AGU reference because all details are covered by this and the information in Osborn and Briffa 2006. The lead author on the AGU response is Mann anyway but I accept that an EOS article may be considered by some to be less inherently anti-willie soon Polargeo (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe this to be wrong - but if we have an alternative interpretation reference, then its fine - we should always (if we can) link to a reference that can give a more accessable description of science papers (if we can and it is accurate), since after all the readers aren't (mostly) scientists. The claims that RC should be invalid because it is an SPS or that it is "hostile" is bogus though - and i'd argue that we should use it as a secondary ref for the information. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that was my first thought in not removing it. However, because FellGleaming has been using the talkpage to discuss this matter and he obviously has a different opinion I thought this would best be dealt with by compromise rather than getting into an escalation over a matter of relatively low importance. Polargeo (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

American Prospect as a source

This site raises a number of flags from the WP:RS guidelines. It is subtitled "Liberal Intelligence", and openly and brazenly admits to advocacy. It's mission statement reads, in part:

“ "The American Prospect will strengthen the capacity of activists, engaged citizens, and public officials to pursue new policies and new possibilities for social justice.

The magazine's founding purpose was to demonstrate that progressive ideas could animate a majority politics; to restore to intellectual and political respectability the case for social investment; to energize civic democracy and give voice to the disenfranchised; and to counteract the growing influence of conservative media.

Across two decades, the Prospect has served as a vital link between ideas and political activism."

”

In short, it is a collection of op-ed pieces, and not a valid source for a BLP.

Why do you choose not to comment on the use of Willie Soon's own personal and unopposed testimony published on his own website and added by you [6]. Or on a personal interview with Willie Soon in his native malasia [7]. Or on the thinktank which he is a prominant member of [8]. Or on the Marshal institute publication of his own work (an institute who paid him) [9]. Or the publication of information on the controversy from his own university [10]. Or a press release from his own department [11]. Or the reference of one of his own papers [12]. Your version of balance seems to be very unbalanced. Polargeo (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Why do you choose not to comment on the use of Willie Soon's own personal and unopposed testimony published on his own website". Good question! Because BLP policy barring blogs and other self-published sources specifically excludes material published by the article's subject on their own site. See WP:BLP

The Harvard Crimson attempts I assume to maintain neutrality (though I haven't look at it yet. Don't assume because I haven't addressed a point yet that I necessarily support it.) American Prospect specifically states it is intended to push a particular point of view. It's clearly not valid in a BLP.

From your comments, can we assume you wouldn't object to removing the Harvard Crimson sourced material from the article? FellGleaming (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it is valid to use self published material for the person's own opinions and it should not be trusted any further than that. Polargeo (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Err, your first diff is not "to his own website", it's to the US Senate Environmental and Public Works website. Secondly, potentially libelous material has to meet a higher standard, as per BLP policy.

Repeating the question: do you support removal of the Harvard Crimson sourced material? You raised it as potentially non-reliable. FellGleaming (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I simply wish to state that journalism from a reliable source should not be excluded because you think it is the wrong sort of journalism. Anyway this AmProspect source is doubled up just as the RC source was so it seems a shame to keep culling reliable sources which simply back up other sources just because they come from a different political editorial POV. Also I don't care whether his testimony was in front of Kofi Annan it is still his own testimony and not the view of the senate or the UN. As to the Harvard Crimson it seems a pretty reliable and even sympathetic source in the context in which it has been used so I personally don't have an issue with it, I think I may have even added it myself. Polargeo (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you added the source yourself, why did you use it as an example of an unreliable source and fault me for not challenging it? FellGleaming (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact I think I added most of those sources to this article. I am just highlighting the fact that you are trying to remove sources from editorial quarters you disagree with even when they have no bearing on the content of the article whilst you ignore a host of self published sources and personal testimonies. This seems a little unconstructive. Polargeo (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To the larger question, yes it is the "wrong sort of journalism". It is self-admittedly not neutral and unbiased. It is opinion, and not viable for a BLP. I have no problem with American Prospect sources when they're not in a BLP making potentially libelous statements, but in this case, it's a violation. Please read the BLP policy I linked above. You cannot impugn a living person's reputation with opinion. If the statement is true, then it will be in a RS; why not help me find it? FellGleaming (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

okay I will help find more sources. However, the funding by the API is verified by the press release from his own department. The only comment from AmP is that this funding of the study has been criticised. If a AmP has criticised the funding then it has. We don't need another reliable source to tell us that AmP has criticised the funding. Polargeo (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying a living person's actions "have drawn criticism" is potentially libelous. You cannot source that to a non RS. With the attention this has drawn, though, I'm sure a RS somewhere mentions the incident. FellGleaming (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have doubled up the harvard crimson reference with this because the Harvard Crimson reference also notes the criticism of the funding. If you think doubled up AmP and Harvard Crimson together are not good enough sources for a BLP I will find some more to back up the basic statement "Soon and Baliunas have also been criticised because their research budget was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute". Do you think they have not been criticised or do you think we shouldn't mention this unless it is reported by Fox News or CNN? Polargeo (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just popped the New York Times reference in as well to back up the other three. In fact the New York Times also notes criticisism of their affiliations as well as their funding so I may add this to the article. Polargeo (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine; I removed the AP source but left the claim, since its now backed up properly. FellGleaming (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please redo your edit and not remove the sources. Polargeo (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The claim is sourced now; why do you want to add a non:RS back into the article? FellGleaming (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Add: Polargeo, My edit did not remove the NYT source; please don't accuse me of "removing reliable sources". FellGleaming (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Chris Mooney writing in TAP? How is that possibly not a reliable (and, importantly, notable) source? Guettarda (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BLP An opinion piece making potentially libelous statements against the article's subject is a violation. The notability of the person making the statement is irrelevant, unless its reported in a RS. FellGleaming (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not libelous to report that there has been published criticism. The sooner you get over this idea that everything is libelous the better. Polargeo (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that Mooney was notable, I said that his article in TAP was notable. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information - the content of our articles should be as notable as possible. As for BLP - yes, I'm quite familiar with that policy. I don't see anything that falls afoul of it here, or in the article. There's no reason to doubt their record on fact-checking - in fact, it's a very sober, even caution publication. Even their group blog, TAPPED, reads far more like a column than a blog. I didn't see anything resembling libel in Mooney's column, and TAP isn't the sort of place that's likely to publish anything that would get them sued. So we have notable comments sourced to a reliable source with editorial oversight and a history of fact-checking. So what's the problem? Guettarda (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What's not to understand? The site specifically says their agenda is to promote a particular point of view. They don't even pretend to claim neutral journalistic status. As for their "reputation for fact checking", what is your source for this? I ask in all good faith; I'm honestly interested. FellGleaming (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Having an agenda has no bearing here. You made allegations of libel. Pretty serious allegation to make against Mooney. You have a source for that, or does BLP only work one way? Guettarda (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Were you serious with this? First of all, an agenda 'does have a bearing, which is why mainstream news organizations do not allow reporters to write straight news articles in areas in which they also have strong activist connections. Breach of journalist ethics. As for the silliness about my violating BLP simply for noting his opinions are not valid BLP material, I think that's beneath response. FellGleaming (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You really should familiarise yourself with your content policies. Per WP:NPOV, having an agenda does not rule out a source. No way, no how. Not even kinda.

And no, you did not "not[e] his opinions" you said this his article "mad[e] potentially libelous statements". And that, unlike your other statements, violates BLP. Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no. I suggest you take a step back, a deep breath, and revisit your tautological logic on this one. FellGleaming (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you aren't willing to familiarise yourself with the policy, or no, you aren't willing to remove your unsourced accusations of libel against a living person? Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was going to ask the same thing. What makes TAP an unreliable source (i did check RSN - which showed nothing - and i do mean nothing - neither positive nor negative) - and what exactly makes it an opinion article? (most information in it is reliably sourceable - there is nothing really new there) And finally Mooney is (afaik) as expert an author on the politics of this particular area as can be (with several published books about it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"what exactly makes it an opinion article?" See their quote above. They're publishing opinion and advocacy material, by their own admission. FellGleaming (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientists for Global Responsibility

See this source:

• http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm

The site is clearly not a RS for a BLP. The letter, however, purports to have been originally published in a RS. If someone can find that source, please use it to support this, otherwise the claim will have to go. FellGleaming (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So now a piece by a senior scientist talking about the circumstances surrounding her own resignation from the editorial board of the journal in question and published on the website of a notable organisation and in their newsletter has less value than a journalist piece in a newspaper just because you feel that this scientist might have different views from Willie Soon? Polargeo (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The situation is really very simple. There is no problem with Goodall's resignation letter ... IF its published by a RS. A non-reliable source may have modified it, redacted portions, or otherwise changed the meaning. A self-published activist group is not a reliable source for a BLP. The policy exists for good reason, and we cannot use such sources to tarnish someone's name. FellGleaming (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You do not have a great deal of experience with wikipedia but the rule is that sources should be sufficient to back up the statement, for example if the statement was contentious it would need a cast iron source, however, this statement was not really regarded as contentious until you came along and to be honest I don't really think you believe the statement is incorrect in any way but maybe you would like to see it removed. I judge that this source is sufficient to back up the statements made in the article. Polargeo (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It's a source for her account of the facts behind her resignation, published in the newsletter of a notable organisation. It's not being used as a source for information about any living person other than Goodess. BLP isn't a property of specific articles, it's a property of the subject about which the comment is made. Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The source may be about Goodall, but it is being used to validate a statement about Soon. A claim that's potentially libelous, in fact. FellGleaming (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Goodall? I take it you mean Goodess. And no, it's not about her, it's by her. And it's being used to support statements about her actions. Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend you take a moment to re-read the article, and think about what it's saying. Guettarda (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's being used to support the claim that other editors resigned over the paper. Those are not her actions. What's hard to understand about that. As a non:RS, there's also the issue of whether its an accurate and complete representation of her letter or not. FellGleaming (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hell I've added another ref in anyway. The more the merrier :) Polargeo (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work on the source. Only problem is it says three people resigned, not four. If you'll change that and remove the non:RS from the article, I'll withdraw my objection. FellGleaming (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As a non:RS - please explain what you mean. I'm getting the impression that you understand the concept very well. Guettarda (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It means replace the sourcing for the claim from a shaky, self-published advocacy site, to a third party publication under neutral, responsible editorial control. Required policy for potentially damaging claims made in a BLP. Why are you fighting to keep the claims non-reliably sourced? Do you not want people to believe them? FellGleaming (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Except of course that it isn't "non-reliably sourced" - nor is it a "non:RS". And even under (accepting your analysis of the site) SPS it is a reliable source for the information. Goodess is certainly a very reliable source to her own reasoning.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• a) It is clearly a self-published advocacy site, with a viewpoint hostile to the article subject.
• b) The "source" is not Goodess. The source is a site which claims to have a letter from Goodess.
• c) The letter is being used not only to source the "reasoning of Goodess", but of other CR editors.

I ask one more time. If this material is reliable, why do you not want to source it from a RS? Ultimately, it makes for a much stronger case for the material you're trying to present. FellGleaming (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with our sourcing policy before continuing these discussions. Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your policy? Is it different than Wikipedias? I've already quoted the relevant sections from WP:BLP and WP:RS.

I ask a third time. If this material is reliable, why do you not want to source it from a RS? Ultimately, it makes for a much stronger case for the material you're trying to present. FellGleaming (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It is an RS - repetition of a mantra doesn't make it not be one. And please do not change again without getting consensus or other resolution. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

JSA

The polar bears stuff looks very dodgy, as is JSA's stuff. Anyway, both your links say it is unpublished William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Now this has gone too far

The addition of Soon's comment about an expert (Amstrup) adjusting his models to get the correct outcome and sourced from an unpublished draft version of a manuscript intended for the non-science journal "Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences." is just disgusting. Your quest for good BLP sourcing has lost all credibility by your additions. You are presenting Soon publications from a non-science journal which directly criticise the integrity of a scientist who has published in a peer reviewed science journal. i will remove this instantly per our BLP policies. Damn it I even have sympathy for Soon's view in this particular case but you just cannot do that. Polargeo (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC has removed it already. Do not put it back in. Polargeo (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What's your objection exactly? The paper was published (though not when the ScienceMag story was written. Nor is the person you say is being critized even named, which means there is no BLP issue even if the paper wasn't published. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 07:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The person is named in the source and is easily identifiable. I would strongly suggest the quoting unpublished drafts of a paper is very poor. Quote the actual paper if you must. It has been published and I have read it. It is a terrible public policy paper and not a science paper at all but there you have it. :) Polargeo (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The person being criticised for shoddy science is XXXXXXXX (and two other authors). Just becuase you don't actually name them doesn't make the BLP criticism any less this is BLP crazinessss. Polargeo (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can resource it from the journal itself. However, I really only feel a second reference is necessary because of the "none of them ever saw a polar statement" swipe made in the preceeding paragraph. The rebuttals before that are fine; they stick to the science, but a personal challenge of that sort really needs to be balanced with the fact that Soon has published -other- papers on the topic with other researchers. But if you feel the whole section will be overly long with this material, we can just trim out that final statement.

And yes, if you do not name the person, you're not violating BLP. WP can't be sued by claims made on external sites. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 08:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I contest that. If you make a claim that a scientist is fudging his data and source it so that it is clear who you are refering to (did not take me more than a click to see who was being refered to) that is a serious BLP issue. Polargeo (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is very different to the scientific inaccuracies Soon has been accused of in peer reviewed publications you are in fact quoting unpublished and unreviewed material from Soon that actually questions the integrity of another scientist. This is BLP craziness. Polargeo (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP says "to persons named" in an article. Further, legal precedent on libelous torts in this case is clear; responsibility ends at the server boundary. Legally, the only exception to this case is when a celebrity or public figure is described in such a way that from that text alone, their identity can be determined, even without actual use of their name. If you doubt this, I'd be happy to post a clarification request to the BLP NB if you wish.

Did you have a reply about my proposal to trim the section? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 08:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My reply is to request that you cease adding defamatory information on easily identifiable individuals who are easily identifiable per you additions. Polargeo (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer if I clarified the issue on the BLP NB? I'll be happy to do that if you wish. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 08:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The identity of Amstrup can easily be established per your source of the unublished draft of the paper. The stuff on the polar bear issue previously in the article is about a notable dispute. Notable because Gov. Palin cited the paper and because there was a dispute between academics in a scientific journal on this matter. The stuff you have cited is not notable as it is low level stuff not even published in a scientific journal. Polargeo (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Interfaces is a peer-reviewed journal, and the second paper is very notable as well, with many mentions in the media, and with Armstrong himself presenting the paper to testimony before the US Senate. Since you feel the material before this is all strictly necessary, I will reinsert the paper, sourced directly from the journal. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 13:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

We should not make this article into a forum for Willie Soon's science, just because he has a wikipedia article does not make it a free reign to go citing all of his scientific opinions. This is not a forum for the individual. Polargeo (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Soon's article is not a place for citing his scientific opinions? Have you looked at any other articles on academics? 15:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists does not concern me. You are now delving into stuff which has been published in non-scientific journals and which he is third author on which is critical of scientists in peer reviewed scientific journals this is going way too far towards WP:COATRACKing Polargeo (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, this is not just a random opinion, it is a peer reviewed paper, published in an academic journal specifically being used to refute a damaging accusation against him. Either the accusation needs to go, or papers he published rebutting it need to be mentioned. 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You really need to stop demanding. I will give you a response. I disagree with your analysis of the issues. We should now wait until other editors have had their say on these matters rather than giving out ultimatums. Polargeo (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My recent undoing of FellGleaming's edit

Fellgleaming in this edit is repeating accusations made by WSoon and his coauthors (from a "draft" of a paper that has not been published in a scientific journal) which accuses a scientist of massaging his data in a peer reviewed scientific paper. I would not usually undo edits in the middle of a content dispute but I feel that this is so far against our policies that I had to undo it and I request other editors to come in with further opinions. Polargeo (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This objection is a little silly and based on faulty understand of BLP policy. The paper isn't alleging intentional malfeasance and, even if it were, its fine in a BLP as long as it is verifiable. You're not complaining about the critical statements about Soon, why are you caviling at statements made by Soon? The touchstone here is verifiability, and verifiability is met. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 16:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it rather incredulous that you should be the only one to understand both WP:RS and WP:BLP. BLP is in effect on all articles, in fact everywhere a living person is mentioned, it doesn't matter where. We need serious reliable sources for BLP stuff - and a "draft" paper is certainly not such for BLP information on 3rd party. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to look again. The latest source reference is not a draft paper, and no living person is directly mentioned. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 17:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at this Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts and i really don`t see a blp issue, it is also not a draft. Could someone tell me what this BLP issue is? mark nutley (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The BLP issue was the criticism of the integrity of the scientists which FellGleaming added to the article and that criticism of the integrity was directly taken from the unpublished draft paper. Polargeo (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The two quotes that FellGleaming put into the article with this edit both came from the unpublished draft paper. Neither are from the actual paper even though FellGleaming changed the reference to cite the actual Interfaces paper he obviously didn't check out the fact that those quotes had understandably been removed from the article. The quotes are also not found in the other reference which Mark has studied. So FellGleeming was repeating clear libellous quotes questioning the integrity of several scientists. It is clear that neither the journal or the news story repeated these quotes as I am sure they both realised the potential legal case that would come their way had they done so. Polargeo (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that?

In any case, I feel no strong animus about those two particular quotes. The important part is to capture that there have been other papers that reached similar conclusions. If you want to take a stab at rephrasing what you object to in my version, I'm all for it. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 12:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Are the quotes that you put in the article in one of the sources you used for those quotes, or are you not citing your sources correctly? Hipocrite (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are. And, as I've already said, you're using a red herring with this. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 12:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Which source in this edit has the quote "extrapolated nearly 100 years into the future on the basis of only five years of data – and data for these years were of doubtful validity." How about "adjusted the models until the outputs conformed to his expectations." Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Both quotes are from the unpublished MPRA paper[13] - MPRA is a free forum for papers - with no peer-review. None of this is in the Interfaces paper[14]. It may also be in Inhofe's minority thing - but that is certainly not a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have evidence I misrepresented the source, present it. Otherwise retract the claim. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have. I gave you two quotes you put in quote marks and put in the article. I couldn't find those quotes in the sources you cited. Where did you get those quotes? Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

On another matter I do have an editorial issue with the addition of arguments and claims made in an obscure public policy journal which critcise peer-reviewed science by applying the public policy assessment criteria designed by the lead author of the article. Polargeo (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This objection won't wash. Ecological Complexity is an even more obscure journal than Interfaces, yet you're defending its inclusion not only in the article, but within the very lede Fell Gleaming^(talk) 12:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the fact that a rather poor social science article on public policy is being used by you as a source to criticise the science in a peer-reviewed science article. That is not balance it is trash. Polargeo (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"Rather poor article" Do you have a source for that, is that your personal opinion? You do realize, don't you, that we cannot put our personal opinion into articles?

Your second objection is worse. The paper is criticizing the forecasting methodology used, not the science. A journal on forecasting in this case is, in fact, more appropriate than a journal on ecology. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 12:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not putting my personal opinion into the article. I am putting it in the talkpage. My personal opinion is that the polar bear forecasting study being criticised was a poor study and rightly criticised. My personal opinion is that the public forecasting article is a mess and I have read about as much as any human is capable without loosing their eyeballs through the back of their own head. You however, were using quotes from a draft of the paper that directly criticised the science and the scientists. That was poor practice. Polargeo (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You cannot use your original research conclusions as the basic for editorial decisions. The paper is valid, well-sourced, and in peer-reviewed journal. The only difference between it and the paper you cite to criticize Soon is your personal opinion. Please try to be consistent and neutral in this regard. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that and the fact that the quotes you alledge are in the paper don't appear to be in the paper. Would you like to adress that? Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are in the paper, as I addressed above. Consider this a warning to stop stalking me from page to page with personal attacks. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 13:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You alledge that the quotes "extrapolated nearly 100 years into the future on the basis of only five years of data – and data for these years were of doubtful validity." and "adjusted the models until the outputs conformed to his expectations," are in a paper published by Interfaces in volume 28, issue no 5, Septermber-October 2008 on pages 382-405, ISSN 0092-2102, EISSN 1526-551x|08|3805|0382, doi 10.1287/inte.1080.0383 ? Yes or no will be fine.

If "no," what paper are those quotes in? If "yes," if I can prove you wrong, what consequences should you suffer? Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can check that they aren't.[15] - both are from the MPRA unpublished paper (MPRA is a free forum - no peer-review) - since Kersten Green has been so nice as to put up the paper - as well as the follow-ups. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not the Interfaces paper I'm referring to. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Go to the top of the PDF - that is certainly the paper that is identified by your doi 10.1287/inte.1080.0383. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Odd, when you gave me that PDF link it jumped down to a comment on the paper. Yes, the paper at the top of that PDF is the paper to which I refer. Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Which means that the quotes are in none of the 3 references given in this[16], and certainly not in the paper as claimed. And the last part about being "presented in testimony" should have had a {{not in citation}} tag added. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, you're absolutely right; I shouldn't have assumed the paper remained unchanged. That's a serious error and I thank you for finding it. Now that we have the actual source of the paper, what do you feel is an accurate summary of its conclusions? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 16:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Erh? Suddenly you were assuming? And this despite that Polargeo pointed out that it wasn't the case.[17] And after Hipocrite asked you several times directly about it? You answered his question quite clearly with "Yes they are"[18], and even later with a "The two quotes are in the paper"[19]. Two direct questions: Did you not at any point in this question whether you were wrong? Had you at any point read the published paper? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, what is your objection re: {{not in citation}}? The actual testimony text isn't in the source, but it clearly identifies that the paper is being read before the Senate EPW committee. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the source doesn't say that it is "being read before the Senate EPW committee" (or "presented"). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) The article text didn't say the paper was being read either. It said the paper's conclusions were being presented. This is correct, so what is your objection? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 17:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Because that isn't correct either. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is. The paper concluded that previous polar bear population estimates could not be relied upon. That's exactly what Armstrong presented to the Senate.

I'm repeating my earlier question again. For the article, what do you think a fair summary of the paper's conclusions are? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats a rather extreme simplification of the conclusion of the paper. The only thing that gets mentioned from the paper is models. And it is only mentioned by one Senator. Now as for the text - it is not supported by the reference - as simple as that. If you want your simplification, then you will have to find secondary reliable sources to state it. (you would have to anyways - since this is a primary source, and you are interpreting it). You btw. have 2 open questions waiting for you in the above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? The article text is "the conclusions were presented to the Senate". To verify that particular statement, it doesn't matter what those conclusions are. It doesn't matter how many senators mention the paper, the source confirms that the EPW committee took testimony.

As for this bit "you would have to anyways - since this is a primary source", - There is no requirement that primary sources be backed up by secondary ones, as you well know. The requirement is that the statements be verifiable.' Further, I note the "main objections to the Soon/Baliunas paper" which you inserted into the article are not at present backed up by any reliable secondary source. Please try to be consistent. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Anything that is considered interpretation of the primary source is original research. Also a primary source is a poor thing to write wikipedia articles on as it does not guarantee that the facts are worthy of inclusion. I know notability is a criteria used to decide whether we have an article or not but just because an article exists doesn't mean we throw out any attempt at making sure things added to the article are notable. An article should never become a collection of facts from primary sources or else we loose any credibility. I would also like to remind you that whatever arguments you make, the improvement of an article is not about just making sure we don't violate some rule, we still come down to consensus on judging what makes the article as balanced as it can be. Information added to date on the Soon and Baliunas controversy includes quotes from the Soon paper. Information on the polar bear stuff includes findings from the Soon paper. However, the stuff you wish to add is uncriticised one sided commentary from a paper on which Soon is only third author anyway. My personal judgement is that this is not acceptable and unless you can get some balanced secondary sources, preferably ones which mention Soon in some way and not just the science and rely on these and not the primary source then my opinion on this matter will not change. Polargeo (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - selectively quoting me now - eh. Here is the full quote of me: "you would have to anyways - since this is a primary source, and you are interpreting it" - i've bolded the part you left out, because that is the important distinction (which coincidentally is the part that you left out). The only thing that you can claim/state about this, is that the paper is mentioned (not "read" or "presented"), and that is a rather non-notable information. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"a primary source is a poor thing to write wikipedia articles on" Ah, but you have no object to the primary source used to attack Soon, how do you?

"My personal judgement is that this is not acceptable and unless you can get some balanced secondary sources, preferably ones which mention Soon in some way" Good to know, then since I already have that source, you won't object when I put it back in. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 06:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC Reversions

This source [20] has twice been reverted out by WMC without any justification. I am restoring it and suggest WMC contribute to discussion here, rather than edit warring. Fell Gleaming^talk 13:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The first one was justified in the edit comment: we've already got a ref for that; avoid spam please. I'm surprised you failed to read it. The second is a Scibaby sock William M. Connolley (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

WP policy states multiple independent sources are better than a sole source. What's your objection to listing two sources, rather than one? Fell Gleaming^talk 14:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you drop the pointless wiki-lawyering? I've given my reasons already William M. Connolley (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe improving references is "pointless wiki-lawyering". You yourself have many times inserted multiple citations to support a claim. Why in this case do you believe additional verification is a bad idea? Fell Gleaming^talk 23:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have. I have many times removed excess citations though. Say no to spam William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

But even in this particular article, there are multiple cites for a single entry...in one case, up to four of them. The fact you don't object to these leads one to believe you simply don't like the source in question. The first source is self-published; having a second independent source is certainly to be preferred. Fell Gleaming^talk 12:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

alleged funding by oil and coal companies

I don't want to edit this article, but someone should summarize the content of this newspaper article. Zero^talk 03:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel the entire issue of funding should be put into a separate section, and that this should be consistent with the way funding of other researchers is treated. The way the article is written, especially the mention of funding, comes across as a biased, attack piece; almost libelous. It makes me very suspicious of the main editors and makes me want to know more about Willie Soon. (i.e. the editor's intentions may have back-fired.) 24.218.193.62 (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, it does read like a hit piece with no mention of really any accomplishments that make him notable, he also got funding from NASA and MIT according to the Guardian article, why aren't those listed? The whole article reads like this: 1 line what Soon did, many lines rebuttal by other random people then another many lines selective editing by Wikipedia editors that aren't related to what Soon did (funding). Theblog (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Obsidi (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Documents show...

Arthur's version: "Greenpeace reports that documents they obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act show... [funding details]"

Original version: "Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show ... [funding details]"

Source article (Guardian) "Documents provided to Greenpeace by the Smithsonian under the US Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) show that... [funding details]"

The stronger wording in the Guardian article than in Arthur's watered-down version ios closer to the original version. I can't see a justification for Arthur's edit, the Guardian is making a stronger claim than "Greenpeace says..."

I'm reverting again. The original wording is practically the same as the source, Arthur's version is distinctly different. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I read another sentence from the reference, about a "Greenpeace US investigation". I've reverted myself in the article, even though there's no evidence that the writer or The Guardian read the documents, only Greenpeace's report. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Also compare the Reuters version here: "Beginning in 2002, Soon's funding mostly came from oil companies, including Southern Co (SO.N: Quote), one of the largest coal burners in the United States, and the American Petroleum Institute, according to documents uncovered in a Freedom of Information Act request by Greenpeace and seen by Reuters." (emphasis mine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is "ios" is, User:Squiddy? 99.190.86.115 (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Of reference interest from Greenpeace; CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal ?

Of reference interest from Greenpeace; CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal ? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Polar Bear Debate Section

The Polar Bear Debate Section is not notable, he posted a point in a point/counterpoint issue which got minimal outside press. This is supposed to be an article about Willie Soon, not about some obscure article, lets delete the section. Theblog (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Its direct involvement in the debate regarding polar bears and the endangered species act would make it notable.--JournalScholar (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Soon was only a co-author on the study, and this section omits all the criticism of Soon's fringe views as detailed in cited sources. Instead, it falsely gives "equal validity" to the claims of Soon et al. and fails to note the outcome, that their arguments against listing polar bears as threatened did not succeed: the final court decision confirmed the listing.[21][22] Soon seems to have been co-author on another paper making similar claims,[23] which scientists dismissed.[24] Probably best to delete the section, if not it will have to be seriously overhauled to give due weight to majority scientific views. . dave souza, talk 13:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There was exactly one cited scientific source opposing Soon and to detail the criticisms would mean detailing the rebuttal. It is not for us to decide the validity of a debated subject. I removed the section as I could only find one news source discussing it.--JournalScholar (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

NYT article on Willie Soon's "deliverables" ("scientific" articles, Congressional testimony) to corporations

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

→I added something on this. I didn't mention some of the likely more heated aspects: the "deliverables" description he used in emails, or that his own salary comes out of the funding he raises. The article mentions that he only works part-time; is that something we want to mention in intro? (That's an earnest question, not a rhetorical one.) Crust (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be ok to ad "deliverables" in this case because that is at the center of the controversy. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think so, too. Go ahead, anyone Jcao219 (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Further sources

On the same general topic, Goldenberg, Suzanne (21 February 2015). "Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry". the Guardian. Retrieved 22 February 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Not sure if this adds much to the NYT and Boston Globe, but worth considering. . . dave souza, talk 14:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Tollefson, J. (2015). "Documents spur investigation of climate sceptic". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.16972. looks useful, also Malakoff, David (19 February 2015). "Climate skeptic's fossil fuel funding puts spotlight on journal conflict policies". AAAS ScienceNow: News. Retrieved 23 February 2015. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) covers the story from another angle. . . dave souza, talk 20:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Aerospace engineer?

The article states he is an aerospace engineer. His blurb at the Smithsonian website says he is an astrophysicist. Other sources used in the article ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]) also state he's an astrophysicist. Further, his doctoral advisor, Joseph Kunc, is a Professor of Astronautics, Aerospace Engineering, Physics and Astronomy ([34]) in the astronautical engineering program at USC (not the aeronautical engineering program). 32.218.35.110 (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Updated link to the Smithsonian. — Guarapiranga (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Update from the 22 Feb 2015 NYT article Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher, "Though often described on conservative news programs as a “Harvard astrophysicist,” Dr. Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard. He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering. He has received little federal research money over the past decade and is thus responsible for bringing in his own funds, including his salary." . . dave souza, talk 07:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I saw that NYT piece from a day ago, but all the other media has called him an astrophysicist, we should be following the majority of reliable sources, even if it is the NYT's that is the outlier. Oh and he was literally an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory, that's a lot different then just "aerospace engineer" of which I don't think he has done that job in a long time. --Obsidi (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest writing to the New York Times to request clarification or correction if you think they've made an error. They take those sorts of requests pretty seriously. In fact, I would be very surprised if they'd printed this article without extensive fact-checking, given its implications, and I think we should go with what they say (since they specifically address his job description) unless it turns out that they've erred. MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Read what they wrote. 1) He has never been employed by Harvard, 2) He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution, 3) has a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering 4) He has received little federal research money over the past decade and is thus responsible for bringing in his own funds, including his salary. All of those things are totally true, I do not dispute the factual accuracy of any of them. But that doesn't mean he isn't an astrophysicist, and he is referred to as such by many other reliable sources. Maybe this NYT's article will convince the others to issue a retraction or start referring to him differently, but we shouldn't get ahead of the reliable sources. So far the vast majority refer to him as an astrophysicist. --Obsidi (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Obsidi. Also, "aerospace engineer" is a job title (like "professor," but unlike "doctor" in the sense of "has a doctorate") and as far as I understand no one things Soon is employed as an aerospace engineer at present, regardless of his training. --JBL (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times wrote: "He is not an astrophysicist". That's not a gray area. It's not equivocal. If you're suggesting we ignore a clear statement from a reliable source (the Times) because you think they're wrong, then that's not really an option here. I think the Times article was clear in that many partisan sources call him an astrophysicist, but that he is not one. This is a factual matter and, again, if you think the Times is wrong here then you need to contact them directly and request a correction. MastCell ^Talk 18:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Soon is 100% an aerospace engineer, see https://astronautics.usc.edu/about/history/ and http://phdtree.org/scholar/kunc-joseph-a-2/ and http://phdtree.org/pdf/24740895-nonequilibrium-kinetics-in-high-temperature-gases/ and http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pofb/2/11/10.1063/1.859352 and http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/95/8/10.1063/1.461622 Please note order of authorship and affiliation Kunc (Physics) Soon (Aerospace Engineering) Willard Anthony Watts (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

He clearly graduated with a degree as an aerospace engineer. If you want to call him that I guess that's fine (although all your links are from a decade and a half ago, fairly old, and I don't think he does that anymore), but the question isn't really if he is an aerospace engineer, but if he is an astrophysicist. --Obsidi (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Soon NOW plays the part of an 'astrophysicist' just like Monckton plays the part of a 'climate scientist' and Watts plays the part of a 'meterologist' they all play at something that they have no formal completed degree training in their current positions. None of those people have a degree in any way-shape-manner-form to the parts that they are NOW playing. Willard Anthony Watts (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I imagine it would be very difficult to find a RS that calls Monckton a "climate scientist," and Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) call him one. Many RS attest that Watts is a meteorologist, and Wikipedia does and should call him such. If the vast majority of RS-s call Soon an astrophysicist, then Wikipedia should, too. If there is disagreement among RS-s then Wikipedia should make clear what the nature of the disagreement is, with appropriate weight. I don't think the principles here are very hard. --JBL (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with either classification (astrophysicist or aerospace engineer). There's a non-zero crossover between astrophysics and aerospace engineering, specifically on the physics-heavy end of aerospace (which is what he concentrated in). He's published real, non-pseudoskeptic, non-controversial papers in the The Astrophysical Journal such as [35]. I'd lean more towards astrophysicist because he's never been involved in research in the engineering side of things, but neither term is incorrect and both are supported by sources, so this is just my humble opinion. Sailsbystars (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia: "Gavin A. Schmidt is a climatologist", but he is "BA (Oxon); PhD (London), both in mathematics". From first comment, #31 links to The New York Times, #32 to Reuters and #33 to The Guardian: all of them, "Soon, an astrophysicist". Oscar0084 (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're trying to do, but those are apples to oranges. If there were reliable sources explicitly saying that Schmidt is not a climatologist, then you'd have a point. In this case, there are multiple reliable sources stating unequivocally that Soon is not an astrophysicist, which is why we're having this discussion. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not apples to oranges, it's a very solid point! We have one RS that says that Soon is not an astrophysicist and because [?] he trained as an engineer; but this is not a standard we apply, particularly because in this case there are lots of RS-s that call Soon an astrophysicist. The most charitable-to-your-position way one can read the RS-s is that there is genuine dispute among them; in such a case, Wikipedia should report on this genuine dispute (with appropriate weight), not make a declaration that some RS-s are better than others. (In my opinion, there's no doubt that Soon is a shady character doing crap science; but just because this is true doesn't mean I get to add Category:crap science or whatever. And just because there's one solid expose of Soon doesn't mean that we forget all the other sources.) --JBL (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me just add that it's extremely poor form to keep editing the article to make your point while this discussion is underway. Particularly because we do not have RS-s calling Soon an "aeronautical engineer." There are many perfectly valid ways to portray Soon's less-than-admirable qualities, but this one is just incredibly stupid. --JBL (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I get that you're angry—that's obvious since you're calling me "incredibly stupid" and my edits "garbage"—but your ideas about my motivations make absolutely no sense. You think my goal is to discredit Soon... how, exactly? By presenting him as an aerospace engineer rather than an astrophysicist? As far as I know, being an aerospace engineer is neither more nor less inherently prestigious than being an astrophysicist, so aside from disapproving of your tone, I can't even understand the thought process by which you imputed my motivations. It might be helpful to adopt a calmer and more rational approach.

Let's be clear. The goal here is not to play the find-a-source-that-says-X game. The goal is to accurately reflect the best available sources. The best available sources—the most recent, and the highest quality, and those which directly address Soon's professional title—state unequivocally that he's not an astrophysicist (New York Times 2/21/2015, NPR 2/24/2015, etc). It is possible to find older sources of varying qualities which refer to Soon, in passing, as an "astrophysicist". But I think that any serious attempt to reflect reality would start with the more recent, high-quality sources which directly refute this title.

I think it's ridiculous for you to insist on including Category:Astrophysicists when the New York Times literally wrote, just a few days ago, that "Soon is not an astrophysicist". But if that's how you want to go on record (and double down), then be my guest. I'd be violated some of my most deeply held principles if I continued this discussion under these terms. MastCell ^Talk 21:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not having read past the first line of your comment, I would like to note that I think one edit you have made is garbage, and I think that calling Soon an aeronautical engineer is incredibly stupid -- I have not applied these terms more broadly (vis., to you or your edits generally), nor do I think they apply more broadly. I will try to read the rest of your comment and produce a substantive response soon, but I may not have time this evening. --JBL (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

---

• Quotes from Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics sites:

SOON, Willie, Astrophysicist. B.Sc. (1985), M.Sc. (1987), Ph.D. (1991)[with distinction] University of Southern California. Research specialties: Observational analysis and physical modeling of phenomena relevant to the Sun, Sun-like stars, and the Earth. Source: Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences

Soon is also listed as staff in the Solar Physics and the Stellar Variability groups. And he has published some 60 research papers on solar activity and climate change.

So it doesn't appear that Dr. Soon could reasonably be described as (presently) an aeronautical engineer. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: unsound arguments

"Soon's arguments are generally dismissed by climate scientists as unsound, but he is frequently cited by politicians opposed to climate-change legislation." The two articles used as a reference do not make a case for claiming what the response of "climate scientists" are. This is poorly worded in trying to attest to the general response of an ill-defined group of people.

I would suggest changing this to stating what portions of Soon's arguments are "unsound" Something like, the recent temperature changes are far larger than what can be justified by solar variations. This sounds more like an opinion disguised as a statement of fact. Make it a statement of fact.

Recall, that this is a living person and libel can be considered a problem. Would ayone really want to try justifying a claim as to what climate scientists would generally dismiss?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.150.76 (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Per NYT, "Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change." And other points, including "The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, whose scientists focus largely on understanding distant stars and galaxies, routinely distances itself from Dr. Soon’s findings." There's a difficulty in that much of Soon's work is held in so little regard that rebuttals aren't always formally published, for example the recent Monckton et al. paper, though the issues with Soon & Baliunas 2003 are well covered. As for the living person, this is a person who repeatedly published fringe views attacking the work of reputable living scientists, and neutrality requires that we make that position clear. . dave souza, talk 18:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, a publication which has previously been accepted at RSN has published an interview with Gavin Schmidt commenting on Monckton et al. 2015 so I've added that, and have clarified the summary of the paper on the basis of its abstract. . dave souza, talk 19:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI edit request: Not "Harvard staff"

I'm affiliated with Harvard, so I really shouldn't be playing brand-name defense. Could somebody please decide whether Jeff Neal's statement in the Guardian, this Crimson article,and the NYT quote "...has never been employed by Harvard" are sufficient evidence to remove the unsourced "Harvard University staff" category? FourViolas (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sources for Soon funding/disclosure controversy

We have these opinion pieces used in the article:

• Mihai, Andrei (February 23, 2015). "Leading Climate Denier and Harvard Scientist Took $1.2 Million Bribe From Oil Companies". ZME Science.

• Brian Merchant (21 January 2015). "How Climate Change Denial Still Gets Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals". Motherboard.

The "Bribe" piece is borderline slander and is clearly inappropriate for a BLP. I've removed it.

I question the use of the "Motherboard" piece here. This opinion piece, which is mostly about Christopher Monckton, is overtly partisan, and we normally steer clear of such axe-grinding sources for BLPs. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The "Motherboard" article shows mainstream views of the work, lead author Monckton, which is otherwise shown in in-universe contrarian isolation. Due weight is needed for the majority scientific views of the work which Monckton, Soon and Bridges have cobbled together, and this is a reasonable source. . dave souza, talk 07:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. It's certainly political. And seriously ad-hom, from the ridiculous photo lede right on thru. Which does fit much of "mainstream" opinion, sadly.

Has Gavin Schmidt made a substantial criticism of Monckton, Soon et al 2015? According to both Briggs & Monckton he's just blowing smoke.

The Nature news article has a more temperate criticism by Schmidt; I think I'll substitute that, suppose we could leave Motherboard as a 2ry cite? --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree on the ZME link, I was a bit uncomfortable with that myself. Brian Merchant, on the other hand, is a credible journalist, experienced on the topic, working for a generally reliable source. Seems OK to me for the time being. A far bigger problem, I think, is that 2/3 of the section on the Moncton et al. is based on the primary source. I'm comfortable with Merchant's quote from Schmidt. I'm far less comfortable with our interpretation of primary literature. Guettarda (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point re Monckton et al. This isn't the best place for discussing the actual science in that paper. We must have a discussion somewhere on "Climate Models vs. Reality" -- but I can't find it. And, of course, it's a new paper so we run into WP:Not News. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I trimmed it, perhaps a bit more than I should have, perhaps a bit less. It's hard to know how to interpret primary sources (I've seen spending too much time looking at MEDRS stuff). Feel free to revert me. The main issue here is, as you say, NOTNEWS. More will be said about this eventually, probably for the most part in places that we can't cite. If it ends up mattering (one way or the other) more will be said. If it doesn't, then no one will care and it will disappear into a sentence elsewhere in the article. Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Politics of the Willie Soon disclosure controversy

I think it's noteworthy that this appear to be a "manufactured controversy" from the results of Greenpeace's successful FOIA request to Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), Soon's employer. Per the Nature article, and this posting by William M. Brigg's, a co-author, it appears that Kert Davies, the Greenpeace employee who obtained the documents, wrote to Science Journal Bulletin, which published Monckton, Soon et al. 2015, "Why models run hot", insisting that Soon’s past funding sources constitute a conflict of interest. All four authors have declared that they wrote the paper on their own time and received no compensation. Per Nature, Davies describes Soon as “basically offering himself up as a spokesperson on climate denial”. Monckton rejected the allegations by Davies as “manifestly untruthful and malevolent”.

Roger Pielke, Jr. wrote here that "undisclosed COI is endemic in scientific publishing." and gives an example of Joe Romm, Amory Lovins and others failing to disclose COI in a 2010 Environmental Research Letters paper. Pielke wrote that "COI disclosure is a good idea", but that it should not be "used as a selectively applied political bludgeon," as Pielke thinks is happening in the Soon brouhaha, which is largely recycled from the Soon and Baliunas controversy of 2003, and the later controversy over his industrial funding.

Pielke also wrote that, in his case, "The incessant attacks and smears are effective ... I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic..." And Soon was quoted in the Boston Globe article: “Stop politicizing science!’’ he said. “Just stop!’’

--Pete Tillman (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If you think Monckton has credibility in science, I've got a bridge to sell you. The political context needs to be shown, and as you suggest, it's worth noting Soon's speech which concluded "Stop politicizing science!". . dave souza, talk 07:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and this issue isn't whether they "worked in their own time", it's whether Soon complied with journal policies on disclosure. . . dave souza, talk 07:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know if it's wishful thinking, but the paper was not published in Science (journal), but in the Chinese Science Bulletin. The former has an impact factor of >30, the latter, erm, not so much.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the controversy, I see little reason to use sensationalist tabloid websites such as vice.com as sources when this issue has already been covered by standard journalistic entities such as the Boston Globe. 71.170.209.55 (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, there is something I don't get at all. I don't really expect an answer, though. But I'll ask anyways.

If the range of IPCC projections includes as something like a lower bound of 1 to 1.5 degrees of warming or so for the 2000-2100 period, with around 3 to 3.5 degrees being viewed as the more likely outcome, than why the hell does taking that viewpoint, with a Dr. X saying "I think what will actually happen is something like 1.5 to 1 or say degrees of warming", mean that the Dr. X is some kind of dangerous climate change denialist and that they're a theologically evil person?

You have a rainbow of various simulations from different teams in different countries using different assumptions doing complex modeling, and the overall variance is pretty wide, from like 1 degrees of warming (a pretty unlikely, overly conservative estimate) all the way up to 5 degrees of warming or more (again, a totally unlikely and silly alarmist prediction). And around 3 degrees or so is something like the top of the bell curve, so to speak. Why exactly is advocating a viewpoint from the smaller side of the bell curve make you a bad person that eats kittens, a terrible environment hating skeptic, and so on, when you're still agreeing with, well, everything in terms of the actual science? You just find that the more likely outcome is on the left side of the bell curve rather than the right. Yet... why? Why does that assign the mark of Cain on you? 71.170.209.55 (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who is talking about theology. Soon's paper is not criticised because of the result - indeed, it would be a great result if it were true. The paper is attacked because it uses a lousy methodology, because it makes unjustified, unrealistic, and arbitrary assumptions even within that methodology, and because it misrepresents previous work. Soon personally, on the other hand, is under criticism because he published a string of such dodgy papers that always seem to strangely deviate from the mainstream in the direction that benefits his funders, and that he did not disclose this relationship. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Stephan, have you seen any substantial scientific rebuttal to Monckton, Soon et al? So far, what I've seen is ad-homs or "smokestack lightning."

Apparently Trenberth made an effort, see Briggs response to Trenberth's critique. Unfortunately, this is "Trenberth’s critique as given to me by the reporter (so God only knows if it’s accurate)" -- from Briggs. Have you (or anyone) seen Trenberths's actual critique online?

William M. Briggs & coauthors mount a spirited defense of their work at [Breitbart: The Silence of the Scientists]. As you know, the climate models aren't doing well at all when compared to reality. McIntyre has demonstrated that Svante Arhenius's 19th century "toy model" outperforms (ims) substantially all of the IPCC efforts [!!]. Monckton et al have extended this work, and formally published it in a peer-reviewed journal. As you know, the foundation of science is empirical results. SFAICT, the current IPCC projections don't seem to match reality at all well.... A problem, that. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC), Professional geologist, amateur climatologist

The paper was published on January 8th, so anything peer-reviewed would need a while. I've looked it over myself and found various dubious claims. But while my expertise is enough to convince me, climate really is outside my field. I don't know what you require as evidence to T something, but while Soon et all make this claim, it is one of the more obviously dubious one. We are quite close even to the very first IPCC projections. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Re: Models vs. Reality. OK, here's a specialist's opinion: "How can the IPCC increase their confidence in anthropogenic global warming at the same time their model projections are diverging farther and farther from reality?" – mainstream climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon, "Your Logic Escapes Me" by JNG: recommended reading. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, Pete, you seem to be quote mining and misrepresenting JNG: that's not his opinion nor it it the title of his blog article: it's a view he's heard, as clearly shown by the preceding words you omitted: "Several times during the past few months, I’ve heard generally incredulous statements such as". In discussing contributions of natural variability to the "hiatus" since 1998, he expresses general agreement with most of Curry's bullet points, then says "none of this means that the warming over the past 60 years is less likely anthropogenic", and notes that criticisms of IPCC statements misrepresent the periods they cover. . . dave souza, talk 10:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Dave: I recommended reading JNG's post because it's both balanced and temperate. Please note his polite disagreement with his fellow-professional, Judith Curry. I think you could learn something from his approach. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Since we're discussing blog posts by topic experts, Carbon Brief quotes several, Jan P. Perlwitz has discussed the paper in Dr Jan Perlwitz on Monckton et al. (2015) - Google Docs and a blog post, Arthur Smith blogs about The Monckton equation, and Joanna Haigh covers problems with the paper at Climate at Imperial-Insights from staff and students at Imperial working in climate related areas.. With climate models, simpler isn’t necessarily better. . . dave souza, talk 10:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these. There's also a detailed critique by Rud Istvan at Curry's, here. He finds some errors, and Curry comments that the new paper "doesn’t provide any new insights into the underlying source of the problem," the problem being why the models are running hot. So the scientific part of Monckton et al. appears to be a tempest in a teapot. More than deep enough for here, I think. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Soon could very well be wrong, and given the way in which the model itself is specified and the assumptions made his predictions appear at least superficially to be really flawed, but does anyone else think that using Google Docs, blogspot.co.uk, and such websites as sources for a biographical page is a pretty bad idea? What ever happened to the notion of quality control in terms of reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.209.55 (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Questions about the alleged failures to disclose, and WP:BLP problems in our article

It turns out that the Smithsonian Institute and Southern Power had signed a nondisclosure agreement for their research contracts, and thus it appears that Soon & the CfA couldn't, by contract, disclose the source of their funding from Southern. Charles Alcock, director of the Harvard­-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, told the New York Times last week that the provision in Southern’s funding agreement prohibiting disclosure “was a mistake.” Sources: What Does A Conflict Of Interest In Climate Science Look Like?, Daily Caller, 2-27-2015. New York Times followup story, FEB. 25, 2015

Folks, this is why we have the WP:Not News rule. It looks to me that Justin Gillis of the Times didn't do his homework. I'll tag this as a current event, but think we need to drastically trim it down & await developments. Particularly as this is a WP:BLP, and it appears that Greenpeace activists and others are using gullible reporters in what appears to be a character assassination campaign. See, for instance, this official Greenpeace document, which is remarkable, --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If the Smithsonian Institute and Southern Power had signed a nondisclosure agreement for their research contracts, and thus Soon & the CfA couldn't, by contract, disclose the source of their funding from Southern, then Soon had an obligation not to publish in journals that required such disclosure. Specifically, he and his co-authors should not have put a note at the end of their 2015 paper in which "all four authors claimed no conflicts of interest on the published study".[36] Of course The Daily Caller is a bit fresh, and I don't think it's accepted as an RS, but in it Curry seems to agree: “Bottom line: Scientists, pay attention to conflict of interest guidelines for journals to which you are submitting papers,” she added. “Select journals that have COI disclosure requirements that are consistent with your comfort level.” It's a fair point that we should cover the Smithsonian's clarifications, so logically that overrides your suggestion of "drastic trimming" of the section. . dave souza, talk 09:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

---

I've removed the lede bit calling out a specific number of papers, because later developments make the number unclear. At least one journal in the Greenpeace list had no COI policy then, and Smithsonian's contract with some of Soon's funders appeared to prohibit disclosure of funding sources. Pete Tillman (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As state by Dave above: If you cannot disclose your funding, but are required to by a journal, you cannot publish in that journal. You certainly cannot declare "no COI". That's not a reasonable excuse. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure sounds like WP:Original Research to me.... Pete Tillman (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that "original research" describes your belief that a corporate non-disclosure agreement absolves Soon of any ethical obligations to report conflicts of interest. Likewise, your view that the Times "didn't do [its] homework" appears to be original research, or rather personal opinion, to say nothing of your views that the Times is full of gullible dupes participating in a "character assassination campaign". In this context, it's sort of ironic for you to drop the WP:OR hammer on Stephan's rather gentle attempt to correct you. In general, threads that start out with editors vocally expressing their personal, polarized viewpoint on a controversial topic are rarely productive. MastCell ^Talk 16:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Soon page at Heartland, plus his response to Greenpeace et al.

I linked this page, Willie Soon hosted by Heartland Institute a few minutes ago. It includes Soon's biography, CV and publications, plus links to articles and editorials about the 2015 controversy. Stephan Schulz promptly reverted, commenting "unreliable source, undulyself-serving."

This seems like a reasonable and useful add to me, and also hosts this Statement by Dr. Willie Soon, posted 03/02/15, his comments on the current controversy, which we definitely need to add (but I'm pressed for time today). Stephan, what specifically don't you like re the page you reverted -- other than that Heartand put it up? --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

For me Heartland as a source is plenty enough to reject it. But policy-vice, the page violates NPOV. It also is an unreliable and self-serving source attacking third parties. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

By the assumption that Soon's CV is self-serving then Wikipedia may never use the CV provided by any subject in writing their biography. Absurd and impossible. How many 3rd party reliable sources list complete CVs? In biography, here on Wikipedia and everywhere, the subject is generally considered a reliable source on his own life unless a claim is prima facie incredible or contradicted by other sources. Do you have a source contradicting Soon's CV as published by him on the Heartland site? —Blanchette (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The page in question is not a CV, and we use CVs only for simple biographical information. Moreover, the page was linked as a WP:EL, not used as a source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, But Something's Got to Give. You're right Stephan Schulz, that is only an excerpt of Soon's CV and the page itself is mostly written in the third person and appears to have been prepared by the Heartland website staff. And yes, as an external link it doesn't quite fit the criteria, but of course your "self-serving" and "NPOV" objections are hardly relevant where the subject is defending himself personally against attacks on his character and reputation -- such defenses are "self-serving" in the way a "not-guilty" plea is and also necessarily from the POV of the accused. As it stands, this article appears to violate the spirit of NPOV since there is no reference to Soon's denial of the charges against him other than a line in the lede, "Soon says he has 'always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices in my field generally.'" That line is not referenced to a reliable source, however, so I think something is amiss. Do Wikipedia rules on biographies of living persons disallow any personal defense against attacks made on a subject, but permit mention only of defenses made by neutral third parties? Then if a living person is indicted for a crime, Wikipedia will not report the subject's denial nor that of his lawyer, since such defenses are self-serving and POV? Admittedly, most RS reports of an indictment will be followed by a report of any denial, but I can't find one here. If this is the case, I think Wikipedia's policies on BLPs need to be modified. Dr. Soon has written at least a preliminary defense of himself against the charges that others, perhaps not themselves entirely neutral, have made against him. As far as I know, he posted that defense initially, and perhaps exclusively, at the Heartland site: "Statement by Dr. Willie Soon" [37]. Since that statement is in the first person, how can the reliability of the Heartland Institute be at issue? Do you have reason to believe that Heartland has altered Soon's statement? If not, then wouldn't it be appropriate to quote from it, considering that a search of the URSs (usual reliable sources) reveals no report on Soon's self-defense statement. If such a source were to quote Soon on the subject, surely they would use the same source, though perhaps the best of them might try to confirm the document with Soon directly. Should we editors of Wikipedia care whether the biography of a living person quotes charges at length against him but has no space for his defense? I think we should. As far as I know, Soon has been convicted of no wrongdoing. I suggest that here is a situation where primary sources are necessary and appropriate and I hope enough of you will agree with me. If not, something is seriously wrong with Wikipedia's treatment of human beings. Then again, maybe one of you will find a reliable source that bothered to report what Soon said. That would be nice, wouldn't it?—Blanchette (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

An IP had deleted coverage of Soon's Heartland statement, including reliable secondary sources on it, so I've restored the parts covered by secondary sources and added a further reliable secondary source responding to Soon's request that journalists investigate disclosure by other scientists. Shows context. . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. —Blanchette (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Article Not Very Useful

I read about Dr. Soon recently (in connection with the current controversy over funding) and wanted to find out more about him. So naturally I came to wikipeda. It seems apparent that as it is now written this article has an axe to grind (with references of course), but that it doesn't reflect the man.

I took the time to find his published works in google scholar where I found 59 cites of works he (co)authored. It is apparent that, 1. The topics of his publications seemed to change on or about 2000 from being related to astrophysics to climate connected with solar radiation, 2. That in at least one pre 2000 paper I read some of the funding came from sources that the current controversy seems to be acting like he was hiding (and yet there was no controversy in 1995 over this), 3. That he has written on a topic that it would seem he is not an expert (mercury in the atmosphere), 4. That he tends to frequently collaborate with others and in particular with Baliunas, Sallie L., Dmitry Sokoloff, David R. Legates, Armstrong, J. Scott. Some of these collaborations go back to pre-2000 astrophysical topic days.

A reader would want to know the influence these co-workers had on his writings, perhaps more so than where his funding came from. A reader would also want to know what happened on or about 2000 that made him change from primarily astrophysical topics to climate. How other stars have sunspot cycles similar to the sun is not an entirely uniteresting fact to know this man worked to understand.

Kellnerp (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Dr. Soon has now released this statement

From:

Dr. Soon has now released this statement in response to the attacks on him.

"In recent weeks I have been the target of attacks in the press by various radical environmental and politically motivated groups. This effort should be seen for what it is: a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming.

I am saddened and appalled by this effort, not only because of the personal hurt it causes me and my family and friends, but also because of the damage it does to the integrity of the scientific process. I am willing to debate the substance of my research and competing views of climate change with anyone, anytime, anywhere. It is a shame that those who disagree with me resolutely decline all public debate and stoop instead to underhanded and unscientific ad hominem tactics.

Let me be clear. I have never been motivated by financial gain to write any scientific paper, nor have I ever hidden grants or any other alleged conflict of interest. I have been a solar and stellar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics for a quarter of a century, during which time I have published numerous peer-reviewed, scholarly articles. The fact that my research has been supported in part by donations to the Smithsonian Institution from many sources, including some energy producers, has long been a matter of public record. In submitting my academic writings I have always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices in my field generally, consistent with the level of disclosure made by many of my Smithsonian colleagues.

If the standards for disclosure are to change, then let them change evenly. If a journal that has peer-reviewed and published my work concludes that additional disclosures are appropriate, I am happy to comply. I would ask only that other authors-on all sides of the debate-are also required to make similar disclosures. And I call on the media outlets that have so quickly repeated my attackers’ accusations to similarly look into the motivations of and disclosures that may or may not have been made by their preferred, IPCC-linked scientists.

I regret deeply that the attacks on me now appear to have spilled over onto other scientists who have dared to question the degree to which human activities might be causing dangerous global warming, a topic that ought rightly be the subject of rigorous open debate, not personal attack. I similarly regret the terrible message this pillorying sends young researchers about the costs of questioning widely accepted “truths.”

Finally, I thank all my many colleagues and friends who have bravely objected to this smear campaign on my behalf and I challenge all parties involved to focus on real scientific issues for the betterment of humanity."

Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

166.137.248.75 (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Blog source, which is unsuitable. However, we've already covered this in the article, with probably an excessively long quote from this self-serving statement released by the Heartland Intitute on behalf of the martyr. Perhaps, per the NYT, we should note that "Jim Lakely, a spokesman for the Heartland Institute, said Dr. Soon would not answer further questions." May have to add more context to show how inaccurate and ironic Soon's statements are, according to reliable secondary sources. . . . . dave souza, talk 22:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Soon & Congressional demand letters, aka "Gone fishing"

We need some commentary on Congressman Grijalva's demand letter (etc.) and responses to it. I'll start collecting RS's here:

• "Gone fishing": An investigation into the funding sources of climate scientists who have testified to the US Congress makes demands that have the potential to infringe on academic freedom. Nature editorial 04 March 2015

• The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics, op-ed by Lindzen at WSJ, March 4, 2015. Quote: "Mr. Grijalva’s letters convey an unstated but perfectly clear threat: Research disputing alarm over the climate should cease lest universities that employ such individuals incur massive inconvenience and expense..." Lindzen also comments on the NY Times recycling of "this old material {Soon's industry grants] as news..."

--Pete Tillman (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the relevance to a biography of Soon is limited. I suppose one could say that the revelation of Soon's hidden conflicts of interest led a Congressional Democrat to request details on the funding of other prominent climate "skeptics". I get the sense, based on the sources you've selected, that you're more interested in playing the political angle of Grijalva's request, which is outside the scope of Soon's biography (after all, Grijalva's request doesn't even affect Soon in any way). On a broader note, many of the editorial problems on climate-change articles in the past stemmed from the insistence on using partisan op-eds and other highly polarized sources. In that light, your citation of Nature is encouraging, your citation of a Lindzen op-ed much less so. There is plenty of reliably sourced straight-news coverage of Grijalva's request, and I'd urge you to focus on the best available sources if you choose to write about it (and to do so in the appropriate articles, rather than here). MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The WSJ has chosen to hide Lindzen's opinion behind a paywall, revealing only the tantalizing start..... "Research in recent years has encouraged those of us who question the popular alarm over allegedly man-made global warming. Actually, the move from “global warming” to “climate change” indicated the silliness of this issue. The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. This normal course is now taken to be evidence of doom." Doesn't he know who promoted that supposed change? Agree with MastCell that we don't need such commentary in this bio. . . dave souza, talk 04:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"Fossil fuels interests" is a NPOV problem

As both Arhur Rubin and I have pointed out, this is a problematic phrase. It appears to be a formulation of the various activist groups criticizing Soon (and other "climate deniers"), forex at Pollluter Watch, Desmog Blog, Sourcewatch etc. etc. The term was picked up verbatim by MSM stories we cte from the NY Tines, WaPo, Guardian & others.

It's undefined and self-contradicting. Soon's major donors include an electric utility, a charity, and an anonymous donor group. I've tagged the term (again), this time for NPOV, since it seems to be sourced to activists, but re-used by reputable newspapers. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but we go with the sources. The "electric utility" is a major user of fossil fuels. A "charity" in the technical sense (which you seem to like so much) can very well be described as a "fossil fuel interest", and the Donors Trust is a money-laundering machine, but not a perfect one. If the MSM are happy with the label I see no reason not to use it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me be sure I understand, Pete: you note that the term "fossil fuel" is used by numerous reliable sources, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Guardian. But you insist that we not use the term, because... why, again? Because you personally think it's inaccurate? Because the term is also used by some less reliable sources? Please tell me I'm missing something, because otherwise it looks like you're the one intent on violating our content and neutrality policies. MastCell ^Talk 23:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree - the cited source supports the wording used. And since Desmog Blog and the others aren't used as sources here, I'm not sure why their usage of the term matters one way or the other. Guettarda (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Even Heartland uses the term in their defence of Soon. Guettarda (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I removed it because it is clearly incorrect; however, if mainstream reliable sources use it (and not only when quoting questionable sources), and no sources (reliable or not) contradict it, we should state it. I haven't researched the issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand: you removed content "because it is clearly incorrect," while noting you "haven't researched the issue"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

To quickly fill in some details evident in the history but not in this discussion: I removed the tag added by Arthur Rubin and Tillman (since the phrase "fossil fuel interest" or similar is used in cited articles from the Times and Post, in neither case as part of a quotation) but removed the reference to Donors Trust, since it is not mentioned in the body and also is not explicitly linked to fossil fuels in any of the sources I looked at (and for obvious reasons). I'm sure Arthur Rubin will let us know when he finds an RS that says that the Southern Company is not a "fossil fuel interest." --JBL (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As part of an overhaul of the relevant section, I've noted the NYT's point about oil industry funds going down while DT funds went up, and outlined "The records showed that Mr. Soon and the Smithsonian had received money from groups that included the energy conglomerate Southern Company, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, and Donors Trust, a fund for anonymous contributions identified by a 2013 Drexel University study as the largest single provider of money to political efforts to fight climate-change policy" from the CHE. . . dave souza, talk 13:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

---

• I raised this issue because it's apparent (to me, anyway) that credulous MSM (starting with Justin Gillis of the NY Times) have picked up (or been sucked into) the activist political campaign against Dr. Soon and other "climate deniers". There's commentary to this effect at Lindzen's WSJ op-ed, Pielke article at AAAS and elsewhere.

I'm concerned that we are allowing Greenpeace & allies to speak with Wikipedia's voice, which is most definitely against policy. Yes, the NY Times says"fossil fuels interests", but there's good evidence that they ( and others) have been practicing sloppy journalism in Soon's case. See, for example, Goldenberg, Suzanne (February 21, 2015). "Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry", The Guardian. Now, there's a neutral article headline....

It's unequivocal that Greenpeace has been campaigning against Soon (and Baliunas) since at least 2003. I'm leaving on a business trip, so don;t have time to document all this now, but it's all there in RSs. So, yes, it's a serious NPOV problem. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources (prelim list, in haste)

• CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal Greenpeace campaign doc against Soon
• The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics, By Richard Lindzen, Wall Street Journal , free copy
• Climate contrarian’s fossil fuel funding ignites disclosure debate Ars Technica, March 6. A decent, up-to-date summary; good general source.

I see nothing to say in response to this that wasn't already covered by MastCell above. --JBL (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Riight. Pete thinks The Boston Globe, NYT, Guardian, Reuters, Nature and The Chronicle of Higher Education are credulous because he's read something different on the Heartland's pages and a WSJ opinion pages as republished (copyvio?) on hockeyschtick.blogspot? Wonder why he's not citing a real skeptic, Donald Prothero.[38] . . dave souza, talk 13:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Should add ScienceInsider. As for Roger Pielke Jr., he told ScienceInsider "By all means, Willie Soon, whom I don't know and I don't know anything about his research, should follow the guidelines of his institution, and the journals in which he publishes, and Congress when he testifies. If he's violated those requirements he's done something that's pretty serious." So limited relevance to this bio. . . dave souza, talk 13:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This may be the case, but it falls into the "verifiability, not truth" aspect of Wikipedia. We can't discredit the majority of mainstream sources because we believe (or a handful of sources believe) that major sources have been tricked and manipulated by Greenpeace. We report what the sources say. NPOV says we fairly reflect the sources. An op-ed by Lindzen (not a full WSJ article) and an article in Ars Technica (reliable, but in the grand scheme of things, pretty obscure) need to be weighed against major articles by a host of major sources. That is the heart of NPOV. Guettarda (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have two cents about whether 'We can't discredit the majority of mainstream sources because we believe (or a handful of sources believe) that major sources have been tricked and manipulated by Greenpeace'. I quote from the article: 'As of 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry over the previous decade, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work.' Now, it says 'the fossil fuel industry', and I guess that's rather ambiguously stated. This means, more or less, companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires. It turns out that Willie Soon received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. This is not the controversial part. However, what if we consider one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal. Is this part of 'the fossil fuel industry'? The biggest single funder was Southern Company. Note: this isn't the controversial part. This is the plain fact. But, is Southern Company properly referred to as 'the fossil fuel industry'? From 2005, Southern Company gave Soon nearly $410,000. There is also $230,000 from the Charles G Koch Foundation. I wonder, though, how the Charles G Koch Foundation is referred to as 'the fossil fuel industry'. There is also, and this is mentioned above, $324,000 in anonymous donations through a trust used by the Kochs and other conservative donors. I am not satisfied that this can honestly be termed part of 'the fossil fuel industry'. I also am looking at the bald hints about conflict of interest -- this is certainly sourced properly, to the New York Times, but these hints that something happened in violation of some sort of conflict of interest guidelines appear to be hot air. I note that if it's not hot air, then the Internal Revenue Service and Congress should be doing something about it. It could, indeed, easily be construed as a red herring, that the article even finds it relevant to obsess like this over Willie Soon's 'industry funders', as it were. The supposition that these industry funders had any influence over Willie Soon's conclusions is fair enough, as a supposition, it is no supposition that we are talking about research here that is peer reviewed and vetted by other scientists, right? Look, I get it, the idea that this is Mr. 'Climate Deniers' Favorite Scientist'. I get that Soon is a fixture at climate denier conferences, before state legislatures, and on conservative news programs. But the way this article is worded, one might suppose that this guy has been violating federal racketeering law. why not go ahead and say that he's been colluding to defraud the public about the threat posed by carbon pollution? I guess we wait for the New York Times to put it that way? Instead of saying 'fossil fuel industry' just say large industrial carbon polluters. Why not refer to 'Soon's discredited findings'? Anyways, I'm not aiming for the last word, here, I am not bold enough to change the article myself, just noting the impression that it created. It started right at the beginning for me with this question -- is it fair to refer to someone that does not accept the climate change consensus a "denier"? Should people who sincerely and honestly have questions about the state of climate change science be labelled with a term analogous to a Holocaust denier? Maybe I just haven't understood how truly, climate scientists have been living a surreal existence. The physical evidence becomes more dramatic every year, and yet, carbon emissions continue to rise at a steady rate. I'm sympathetic, but I've been touchy ever since Sen. Bernie Sanders used padded data to back up his claim that “Hillary Clinton received $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry..”DanLanglois (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You are responding to a discussion that is more than three years old. Please also see WP:NOTFORUM. --JBL (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Translations

Out of interest, has Soon's work been translated into, for instance, Chinese? ixo (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Willie Soon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=%2F2005%2F4%2F18%2Ffeatures%2F10255121&sec=features
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150125014706/http://www.smithsonianofi.com/sors-index/smithsonian-astrophysical-observatory-sao/solar-stellar-and-planetary-sciences/ to http://www.smithsonianofi.com/sors-index/smithsonian-astrophysical-observatory-sao/solar-stellar-and-planetary-sciences/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Willie Soon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150125014706/http://www.smithsonianofi.com/sors-index/smithsonian-astrophysical-observatory-sao/solar-stellar-and-planetary-sciences/ to http://www.smithsonianofi.com/sors-index/smithsonian-astrophysical-observatory-sao/solar-stellar-and-planetary-sciences/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203090059/http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/globalWarming/GlobalWarmingGuide.pdf to http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/globalWarming/GlobalWarmingGuide.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150315040947/https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/statement-dr-willie-soon to https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/statement-dr-willie-soon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Nationality

I notice that the infobox states Soon's nationality is "American Malaysian". Should it be "Malaysian American"? Because the article states that he was born in Malaysia, and now resides in USA, and I believe the usual practice is to list the origin first, then "American". See Malaysian Americans where it describes "Americans of Malaysian ancestry". --TheBlueWizard (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)