Talk:Frederick Seitz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment moved from article space[edit]

In its present form the article is not as neutral as Wikipedia articles usually are. The second half is rather hostile to the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.220.44 (talk • contribs)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

There is a picture of Seitz here: http://www.physics.uiuc.edu/images/history/SeitzCSL_ID.jpg

Shenanigans[edit]

This article is again degenerating into a springboard to attack Seitz for his views on climate change. A minor incident in his life may seem extraordinarily significant to those morally committed for or against AGW, but in the context of his extensive, varied, and decorated scientific career, is not. Noting his views on the subject are apropos, but we must be careful to avoid undue weight, and to including material simply to attempt to cast him in a poor light. Fell Gleamingtalk 00:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally the "this was necessary because..." statement has multiple issues. One, the lead-in phrase appears to be an editor's opinion, as well as loaded language. Secondly, its length adds UNDUE issues to the section. Third, I don't see a source that says the format is "identical", which makes the conclusion synthesis. Fell Gleamingtalk 00:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The length on 28 August was 3 lines (on my screen); now it's 4 and a bit; you can have clarity or brevity, but not both. Your remark above about "this was necessary because..." was correct that it implied NAS wouldn't have said anything if the article hadn't appeared to be a NAS publication, which is speculation. They also stated clearly that scientific opinion was against it. As for UNDUE: the petition is/was a significant factor in the public (obviously not scientific) climate change debate; and Seitz's (solid-state physics-based...) scientific stature (which you're keen to emphasise) was a not insignificant factor in its being taken seriously. Furthermore, any possible UNDUE issues here are more because Seitz's career is undercovered than that the global warming issue is over-covered; it's just a paragraph and the article doesn't even mention SEPP! See eg the Rockefeller U bio [1] for more science career details to add. Rd232 talk 08:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "we need clarity" is no excuse for ignoring undue weight issues. Nor would I disagree that mentioning Seitz's role in SEPP would be proper. Furthermore, you still have the larger issue that no source says "this was necessary because..." or "this step was taken because". That's synthesis, and the opinion of an editor inserted into the argument. And finally, the undue dwelling on the "similarity" here appears to be COATRACKING the article. The article exists to explain Seitz, his work and views -- not as an excuse to attack them. Fell Gleamingtalk 10:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how often you claim "coatracking" (WP:COATRACK) that doesn't make it true: it's still just one paragraph. The explanation for the NAS action is not synthesis, it's there in the relevant sources. And explaining the facts of the incident is necessary because of Seitz's connection with those facts and the significance of the incident. As for the article not being "an excuse to attack [his views]" - well the paragraph doesn't do that, it's factual: and neither is the article an excuse to whitewash Seitz's significant role in climate change public debate. Rd232 talk 11:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too can't see the UNDUE problems William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be mention, somewhere, that Dr. Seitz served on the President's Science Advisory Council when it reviewed Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and he signed the report which said, in essence, Carson as accurate on the science, and the U.S. government should act against DDT, in 1963? Full report text here; Seitz listed near last pages. Edarrell (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exxon[edit]

That Exxon supplied (some) funding to the George C. Marshall Institute is relevant to that article, but I don't see any reason to included it in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's even less relevant than I thought. The fact that Exxon supplied some funding between 1999 and 2007 is irrelevant to the fact that he founded the Institute in 1984. (Information from the Institute's Wikipedia page. If wrong, please fix it there.) We don't have any information that he was associated with the Institute during the period Exxon was funding it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" We don't have any information that he was associated with the Institute during the period Exxon was funding it." - well (a) we did (paper published in 1994) and (b) we now know he was Chairman until 2004. Rd232 talk 13:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without evidence that Exxon was a significant source of funds for the institute, this still seems WP:UNDUE weight. I'm not sure it isn't UNDUE in the Institute's article, but it certainly is here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Furthermore, even if Exxon was a significant source of funding, that merely makes it relevant to the Marshall Institute's entry, not to Seitz's. As it stands now, its simply a coatrack attempting to link Exxon funding to Seitz's viewpoint. Fell Gleamingtalk 16:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. I agree it should be shown to be significant in size or proportion or else Seitz to be personally responsible (rather than just generally as Chairman at the time it started). But it certainly can be significant enough for inclusion. Rd232 talk 19:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting info[edit]

OK seriously, could somebody make an effort to explain this to me? Rd232 talk 16:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like WP:COATRACK to me; the organizations may be notable (but some of the information added is biased and only marginally relevant, even to the organization), but these particular organizations should not be used unless there is some credible evidence that they are typical of his organizations. I think one of them, with an unbiased description, might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand that, and it appears solely aimed at TASSC, which as a notable intersection of tobacco and anti-climate change activity (cf Climate change denial) in which Seitz played a significant role is certainly worth mentioning. Anyway, what excuse is there for deleting what I've already explained in edit summaries to be (a) a brief and neutral and sourced description of an organisation he chaired for 20 years and authored books and papers for, and (b) a key detail from the oregon petition which relates directly to why Seitz's involvement was important. Rd232 talk 17:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your descriptions are not neutral, and the text is obviously promoting a particular POV Fell Gleamingtalk 17:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec 2, I'll get back to Rd232's specifics later)
Individually:
  1. TASSC: funding information is irrelevant to Seitz, unless there's some evidence that either it was solely funded by those organizations or that he arranged the funding. The article only said he was on the advisory board, so a detailed description of the organization is clearly inappropriate.
  2. Marshall Institute: Much of the added information is not even relevant to the Institute; it certainly isn't relevant to Seitz unless his specific involved in the controversial activities is specified.
  3. NAS: Possible. It's not clear that the entire paragraph is relevant to Seitz, unless he authored the pseudo-peer-reviewed article, which is not specified in our text. If that is properly added, I can see the appropriateness. However, as was noted above, the "was necessary because" needs a specific reliable source.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od)

  • Please stop making me fall off my chair, Arthur! "Marshall Institute: Much of the added information is not even relevant to the Institute; it certainly isn't relevant to Seitz unless his specific involved in the controversial activities is specified." That's really a response to the text " The Institute is a conservative think-tank, and it contributed to the dissemination of the skeptical position on global warming and other scientific issues"? The guy chaired it for 20 years and it published reports co-authored by him that had major influence on climate change policy of Bush I! Rd232 talk 17:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    also there's a case to be made for exploring how under Seitz's climate-skeptical chairmanship GMI became, as Newsweek put it, a "central cog in the denial machine", and had links with skeptics such as Sallie Baliunas; Patrick Michaels (visiting scientist); and Stephen McIntyre, Willie Soon and Ross McKitrick are "contributing writers". Richard Lindzen served on the Institute's Science Advisory Board. (see George C. Marshall Institute for sources). But no, we can't even agree to have a generic sentence on GMI, and it's doubted that Seitz had any connection with any of this! Rd232 talk 17:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    More: the Oregon Petition's NAS-like "article" was coauthored by two GMI-employees (Baliunas and Soon). This was under Seitz's GMI chairmanship, with Seitz's covering letter as NAS ex-president, with the article made to look like a NAS publication. Rd232 talk 17:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have to get back to you later; real world issues have arisen. That's relevant to the Institute, and marginally relevant to Seitz if it was conservative when it was founded. It's all biased wording, as FG noted, but that one might survive a reasonable investigation, with some tweaks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OFFS. You're objecting to conservative? "politically conservative" is right in the intro of their article! Rd232 talk 17:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GMI

In 1984 he had become founder chairman of the George C Marshall Institute, which initially focused on defence issues, advocating funding for President Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative. In the 1990s it branched out to become one of the leading think-tanks trying to debunk the science of climate change.

That's from the Daily Telegraph obit [2]. Any chance that if I add this info with this source it wont' be rejected as "coatracking"? Rd232 talk 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "founder chairman"? Founder and chairman? And you'll have to rephrase the rest, otherwise it's a copyright vio; it's pulled straight from the obit article itself. Fell Gleamingtalk 17:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Founder chairman" is, fairly obviously, the chairman at the time the thing is founded. And yes I'm well aware of copyright, thanks for that. Yet you didn't actually answer my question. Rd232 talk 19:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get an explanation of this please? deleting well-sourced information on the significance of Seitz's involvement with Reynolds. Why? Why? Why? Rd232 talk 19:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read your vanity fair source again...and of course, the source itself has problems in this context. Fell Gleamingtalk 19:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it 3 times. Please state your point clearly, and don't make me extract it from you with a pair of pliers. Rd232 talk 19:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, after various expansion of the article by me, it's now 1220 words (body text, excluding lead and Positions and below), and the climate change part is merely 11%. A truly naive passerby might wonder why the NYT saw fit to title its obituary "Physicist Who Led Skeptics of Global Warming". Rd232 talk 19:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:rd232 for The Daily Telegraph article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1581635/Frederick-Seitz.html It is interesting; and thank you User:Collect as Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#.22Anarcho-Totalitarianism.22_source is interesting regarding Fred's son's (particularly David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch) resulting political views and motivations. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to understand your latter point - I can't see any Seitz connection. Rd232 talk 22:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That passerby would have to be truly naive to consider the NYT as the fount of authority on the obituary of a physicist. I doubt many NYT readers are interested in Wigner-Seitz cells or the crystalline structure of metals. His GW views truly were a minor portion of his life, which your own additions amply confirm. Don't use the good work you did to flesh out this article as justification for inserting more negative material that doesn't belong. Simply because Seitz is no longer living doesn't mean its proper to slander with non neutral presentations. Fell Gleamingtalk 19:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, NYT is an authority on obituary - and do you even bother to read the sources you dismiss? It mentions Wigner-Seitz. And don't use the fact that fleshing out his earlier career is harder work to excessively downplay his contributions to climate change and ETS debates (which after all spans nearly 3 decades of his life; and on both counts reliable sources treat him as a key figure in those areas). It's irrelevant that he's dead; I'm not trying to apply less stringent standards than BLP. Also, if you're going to ignore WP:NLT, at least get the terms right: slander is spoken, libel is written. Finally, please answer my questions. Rd232 talk 22:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll thank you to not imply I'm making a legal threat when I'm clearly doing no such thing. And I'll also ask if you intend to revert out your 3RR violation of the article or simply leave it in there? And in closing I'll reiterate that you haven't represented the source in a balanced manner, and you also have committed a SYN violation by combining the Vanity Fair source with the scholarly study, to imply the funding was the source of the latter effect. Fell Gleamingtalk 22:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(a) if you throw around legal words like "slander", somebody will mention NLT. I wasn't taking it seriously, as you can tell from my prior response. (b) no 3RR, as noted on my talk page. (c) it's not WP:SYN: the book source explicitly says the key role came from administering the Reynolds research program [3] Rd232 talk 09:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you make four reverts in one day, that's a 3RR violation. Any intervening edit breaks your chain, and starts the count over. You can verify this through the 3RR noticeboard if you doubt me. Further, there are SYN and sourcing concerns with your material, among others. You are combining two sources to imply funding affected Seitz's role; you are presenting one study as "studies", and the neutrality and relevance of the source itself has serious questions. Perhaps you could post here the actual text from the source you're basing your summary of? Fell Gleamingtalk 10:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH. this is simply edit warring. I'd just shown you that there was no SYN; you could easily click on the link given on the talk page or which I'd just added to the article. And you have the cheek to continue to lecture me about 3RR after I've already dealt with this issue on my talk page. Take me to AN3 or shut up. And please re-add this well-sourced content back into the article. Rd232 talk 10:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Rd232: this is just edit warring by FG William M. Connolley (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable unsourced intro paragraph[edit]

The National Academy of Sciences then disassociated itself from Seitz in 1998 when Seitz headed up a report designed to look like an NAS journal article saying that carbon dioxide poses no threat to climate. The report, which was supposedly signed by 15,000 scientists, advocated the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol. The report was not peer-reviewed. The NAS went to unusual lengths to publicly distance itself from Seitz' article.

None of this appears to be sourced, and the tone is one of contempt and strongly implies Seitz was deliberately practicing deception.71.161.123.144 (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. This matter is discussed, in neutral language, in the body of the article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seitz Wall Street Journal article on IPCC[edit]

In a 1996 Wall Street Journal article, Seitz criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of corrupting the peer-review process and censoring skeptical scientists.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June12.pdf

Notable. Reliably sourced. 71.161.123.144 (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frederick Seitz. 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:

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) 05:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Frederick Seitz. 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:

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) 10:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Frederick Seitz. 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:

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) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frederick_Seitz&oldid=1210298548"