Talk:Richard Lindzen/Archive 5

Plagiarism in this article.....

From the PBS link cited Doubters of Global Warming:

Affiliations & Funding: Dr. Lindzen has claimed in Newsweek and elsewhere that his funding comes exclusively from government sources, but he does not seem to include speaking fees and other personal compensation in this statement. Ross Gelbspan, who did some of the first reporting on climate skeptics' links to industry, wrote in Harper's Magazine in 1995: "[Lindzen] charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."

Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen is a also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute.

From the current article:

Industry links According to a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics, Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[14] In Aug 2006, according to Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam, Lindzen said that he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees, from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990s, but had not received any money from these since.[15]

According to a 2007 PBS Frontline report, Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen has also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute.[14]

The PBS website is "copyright 1995-2008 WGBH educational foundation".

Okay so the whole section is lifted, practically word for word, from the PBS website... Thus it should be removed as a copyright violation... Alex Harvey (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The first section is not "lifted" in any way or form, its a rewrite with direct quotations. The second section is the same, and contains the wording "according to ..." which shows that the next part is a quote. If you really have trouble with that section, even though its clear, that its fair use, then rewrite it so that it isn't a verbatim copy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Kim, it followed exactly the same structure & was thus a minor rewording. If however you wish to argue that I haven't just demonstrated outright plagiarism (and I am not claiming to know who the editor was who put it in in the first instance) then we may agree to disagree. What you have reincluded is an improvement. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the plagiarised section per recommendations found in WP:Plagiarism. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Awards and Honors

Alexh19740110 To be named a Fellow of an organisation like the American Geophysical Union or the AAAS is, indeed, a great honor (see, for instance, Fellow of the AAAS). Perhaps, we should introduce it again. -Mmarque —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC).

I'm sorry, because this comment was at the top I never saw it. I have no problem including it, but currently the article includes only "awards." I have no disagreement that it's a great honour to be named Fellow of the AGU. I'm only suggesting consistency, that's all. Add one, we should add them all. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

more on health risks of smoking

I have added the word "reputedly" to the text since there is thus far no clear evidence of either what Lindzen has actually said about the health risk of smoking, and certainly no clear evidence of what he believes. Kim has responded with something above but it's unclear at this point if it proves or adds anything. In the event that no one can prove anything soon I think the whole section is fair game for deletion. Comments? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone deleted it without comment, and evidently without providing evidence. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the full quote I note in its paragraph context: "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette. His parents arrived in the United States from Germany in 1938, two years before his birth. His father, a bootmaker, worked in a shoe factory in Massachusetts but eventually moved his family to the Bronx in New York City to live in a Jewish community. Lindzen won a scholarship to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and tranferred to Harvard a year later. An interest in ham radio piqued his curiosity about how the atmosphere affects radio waves, and this led him to meteorology." Alex Harvey (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So is someone in a position to actually see what is in Chris Mooney's book, The Republican War on Science? That is, has he found some new source that positively demonstrates that Lindzen has a documented view on the health risks of smoking, or are we still stuck with just the Newsweek journalist's statement? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, people have had several years to provide evidence that Lindzen has publicly questioned the link between smoking and lung cancer. We have a single journalist reference but no record of what Lindzen actually said, no evidence that the journalist actually understood his point, and no evidence that Lindzen wanted to be on record questioning the link between smoking and cancer. We have a book by Chris Mooney that no one seems to have access to which in all likelihood will turn out to contain no new original research on the matter and simply repeat Wikipedia/internet folklore. I would argue that Greenpeace and others, if there really was evidence "against" Lindzen on this matter to be found, would have found it and it would be publicly available on the internet at one of the many sites devoted to smearing Lindzen's reputation. It's not there, however, which suggests rather strongly that it doesn't exist. If the evidence hasn't turned up within a day or two I'm removing the section. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, may be overstated." We have no evidence for him making this claim other than the un-corroborated quote from Fred Guteri that follows it. If it is really felt necessary to retain this peculiar section, the first sentence should simply be removed. It would not do as good a job of portraying Lindzen as a tobacco-pushing monster, but would be more truthful. I'll remove it.Masmit (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The addition of the link to some journo's piece headed "Opinion and Analysis" on the ABC web-site is hardly strong evidence - it says: "Amongst the selected contrarian 'experts' Durkin has rallied to his cause, there are Tim Ball and Patrick Michaels (who also happen to deny that CFCs cause damage to the ozone layer), and Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen (who, in earlier incarnations, had been active denialists of the link between passive smoking and lung cancer, despite neither having any medical expertise)." No evidence, just an opinion. If you're going to seriously present Lindzen as denying the link between ETS and lung cancer, I think a direct quote might be more appropriate. I'm not going to get into an edit war, though, so have it your way, Kim - readers will continue to be perplexed by this bizarre descent into gossip - dishonest is as dishonest does.Masmit (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Gelbspan article

According to the Gelbspan article [The Heat Is On]:

Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.

The trouble is Gelbspan presents no evidence here to support his case. He claims this is found in the 'testimony of St. Paul.' How does one obtain a copy of this? In order for this to be reincluded in the Wikipedia article, someone would need to show there is other evidence beyond Gelbspan's assertion. Aside, it is astonishing to see the number of websites out there that just repeat this story verbatim without any concern for its accuracy! E.g. Ofcom's Swindle Documentary Complaint(!) Alex Harvey (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability. We're only reporting the claim, the claim is verified to a reliable source, the truth of the claim is another matter. In the absence of clear WP:RS contradiction of the claim, we can merely report it. Rd232 ^talk 00:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You would think some consideration for truth ought to be made. In any case, I edited the above to note that Gelbspan is claiming this is all in the testimony given under oath at St. Paul, Minnesota. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters (see what I said above) but we can verify that Gelbspan didn't invent the hearings. The hearings in question appear to be by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; some details here [1] but only a summary, not including details of expert witnesses or their testimony. Those details don't appear to be accessible online, but they will be public. Given that (and after all it's published in a reliable source), we must assume (without evidence to the contrary or subsequent retraction or legal action) that Gelbspan is accurately reporting expert witness disclosure of their interests. Rd232 ^talk 00:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, thanks for finding that although given that it doesn't mention Lindzen at all (as you say) I'm not sure that it proves anything.

It matters in as much as I'm sure that I'm not alone in just wanting to know the truth.

Gelbspan alleges three points about Lindzen:

The first point may be important as it could establish some sort of conflict of interest. Without the details, of course, it's rather difficult to say. $2500 / day sounds very fair rate for someone of Lindzen's status. I know IT people who are paid sort of contract rate. Thus it would be quite relevant to this article to know exactly what he did for $2500/day and for how long was he employed.

The second point (having a trip to the Senate paid for by Western Fuels) is not really saying anything. No one would pay for the trip themselves if appearing in the Senate so it seems to be given undue weight by both the journalist and Wikipedia.

The third point, though, about L's Global warming: the origin and nature of the alleged scientific consensus article is the one that causes me to doubt the accuracy of the Gelbspan report, because (1) Lindzen claims full authorship for it at his website; (2) he has elsewhere insisted that none of his research has ever been funded by energy interests; (3) the style of the writing in this article is obviously Lindzen's; (4) Lindzen has made exactly the same points in numerous other articles since. I guess it would then be necessary to know: Is this article actually the same speech given that OPEC allegedly underwrote? From the answer to that question would spring many other relevant questions. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if you want to dig up the relevant hearing documents from the Minnesota PUC and get any discrepancies with Gelbspan's version published in a reliable source, more power to you. Otherwise, it's going to be WP:OR. Rd232 ^talk 01:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's going to be rather difficult given that I live in Australia and not Minnesota. In the meanwhile, I have added a "However" to the text to make it clearer that the Ross Gelbspan & Alex Beam versions of the story are actually in conflict (i.e. Gelbspan says that L "charges" (present tense implies ongoing) "$2,500 per day" whereas L in 2006 claimed $10,000 was the net amount that he received (implying that he could only have charged $2,500 for a maximum of four days). I hope that's okay. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You might not have to go there in person, you could try phoning/emailing... I'm OK with the 'however' in the flow of the para, but it would be OR to explicitly claim Beam and Gelbspan contradicting each other since Gelbspan didn't say how many days consulting Lindzen did, and present tense in 1995 is perfectly compatible with "not since the 90s". Plus some of Gelbspan's bits are probably considered expenses, not fees. Rd232 ^talk 13:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Gelbspan hasn't just outrightly lied. "Charges $2500 per day" leaves the impression that it's something that L did regularly. If he has only done this at maximum 3 or 4 days in a 40 year career, then G is clearly applying some "spin". I'm not entirely happy with the current wording either (it just doesn't quite flow) and I'll probably do something about it in due course if no one else does. Thanks for the suggestion: I follow that up and send an email. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This document here that you found earlier seems to concern events after Gelbspan's piece was published. What makes you think it's relevant? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just noted that Lindzen is on record implying that the Gelbspan allegations are both false and slanderous:

Weart ... had written a history of the global warming issue (Weart, 2003) where he repeated, without checking, the slander taken from a screed by Ross Gelbspan (The Heat is On) in which I was accused of being a tool of the fossil fuel industry. (Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?, p. 14).

So our inclusion of this seems to have some pretty clear WP:BLP implications. What's the correct thing to do here? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP does not rule out critique, as long as it is reliably sourced, and this is. Try the devils devils advocate approach here: there are three possible realities: 1) Gelbspan is correct 2) Lindzen is correct 3) Its somewhere in between. In both 1+2+3 Lindzen would complain (with much the same as you just showed). Which is why we do not take a stand on whether or not its true, but rely on secondary reliable sources to provide the perspective. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I get why Alex added that quote, but what's with the unsourced addition of Lindzen's religion (relevance?) and removal of information? diff? Nothing helpful in the edit summaries... Rd232 ^talk 00:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, I'm not sure how you generated that diff -- the other changes (e.g. religion/removal of material) I did much earlier, and it was mentioned in the edit summaries at the time (perhaps I forgot to mention the religion). I removed the awards that Mmarque added because they're not awards; they're memberships. I didn't see how they could belong in that section, and they still appear in the article. Also, Mmarque had added AAAS twice. On religion, Lindzen states in an interview here that "I am somewhat religious, more of a believer in any case than an observer. Something besides mankind exists." That his religion is specifically Jewish is common knowledge. See for instance his participation in the Uni of Chicago Latke vs Hamantesh debate here. I didn't think this detail was so important as to require a reference. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, okay, I also added mention of his discovery of the mechanism of the quasi-biennial oscillation. Well, there it is, again common knowledge, not sure why it wasn't already in the article. See any historical review paper on the quasi-biennial oscillation and you'll see that it was Lindzen & Holton (but mainly Lindzen) who discovered the cause for the QBO. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so what about eliding 200 papers + 3 books into 200 books and papers, and removing the NAS detail? (NB the diff was between the current version and the last one before your 3 recent edits.) Rd232 ^talk 01:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I simply reverted that to what was the previous wording, which I agree also isn't great. Mmarque said that he had written three books, which isn't correct. I haven't investigated this thoroughly, but I am pretty sure he has only written one book (Lindzen, 1990, Dynamics of the middle atmosphere), co-authored a second book (Lindzen & Chapman, 1970), and finally he has co-edited a third book on Jule Gregory Charney to which he contributed one chapter. I am planning on replacing the whole thing with something that's better worded when I add his earlier work. Okay, apologies, it's hard to include all the changes you make in the oneline summary, and I figure most people will look at the diffs if they really care anyway. I considered all of these to be pretty minor, uncontroversial changes. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

On the NAS detail, okay, it added the section on geophysics to the text, as well as I think the year he got it. I thought Mmarque's edits were on the whole very good but he didn't given any justification or summary of them either. On this point, I didn't like the wording, it added inconsistency (i.e. if we're adding the year for NAS membership, why not the others?) and it seemed a little superfluous to note that the section was geophysics. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the comments about Weart and Gelbspan. This is a WP:SPS (non RS) and can't be used for such. We can reference Lindzen's rejection - but not repeat the allegations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really mind if you've removed the quote about Weart & Gelbspan from the footnote. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Draft: Early work section (work in progress)

I thought I would include here the draft of the early work section I am working on. I'm going to edit this as I go and others are of course welcome to contribute. Once it's finished I'll try to merge the material with the existing article in some way that we can all agree on. I'm not going to add the references at this stage but it will all be justified by reliable sources in time. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

---moved to User:Alexh19740110/Lindzenearlydraft, thanks Rd232. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone like to comment on the draft I have written of Lindzen's early work at this point?

Keep in mind that all of what is in my draft so far (and there is a LOT to come) happened before Lindzen turned 30. It is my hope that people who insist on inclusion of what is in my opinion rather silly and petty slurs against Lindzen's character might start to think about whether a little more respect to the life of a great, living scientist is due.

At any rate, I'd appreciate some feedback as I'd like to include this new material in the main article. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Just write it as best you can, from as neutral point of view as you can. When you're done, insert it into the article. Then if someone has problems, they can correct them. But from a quick skim, there appears to be too much editorializing. Even today, the cause of this phenomenon is debated. Show it; don't tell it. In view of the later controversy of Lindzen's skepticism on anthropogenic global warming... it is worth noting that he has never publicly questioned the dangers of anthropogenic CFC emissions and ozone depletion. If his view on CFCs is notable, then just state it. There is no need to preface it with the bit about global warming. See Wikipedia:MORALIZE. -Atmoz (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Atmoz, your helpful comments are much appreciated. On the superrotation section (Even today, the cause of this phenomenon is debated) the truth is I haven't finished as I am struggling with understanding what the status of this issue is today. I think that the issue is still open and that some combination of both the Fels/Lindzen hypothesis and the Gierasch seems to be involved... I'll fix up the wording once I know what to write. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there really a consensus on cirrus clouds...?

Whilst researching Lindzen's biography I have come across an 11-author review paper just published in JGR:

Hui Su, Jonathan H. Jiang, Yu Gu, J. David Neelin, Brian H. Kahn, Daniel Feldman, Yuk L. Yung, Joe W. Waters, Nathaniel J. Livesey, Michelle L. Santee, and William G. Read, Variations of tropical upper tropospheric clouds with sea surface temperature and implications for radiative effects, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D10211, doi:10.1029/2007JD009624.

They state in their introduction:

[3] High-altitude clouds in the tropics include deep convective towers and associated anvil clouds, as well as thin cirrus that can be formed in situ by gravity wave and Kelvin wave perturbations or by large-scale uplift of humid layers [Massie et al., 2002]. The relationships of deep convection and associated clouds to sea surface temperature (SST) are of great interest in climate studies because of their importance for cumulus parameterizations in models and their potential implications for cloud feedbacks in climate change. A number of studies have been conducted using various measures of cloud observations and numerical models [e.g., Graham and Barnett, 1987; Waliser et al., 1993; Ramanathan and Collins, 1991, hereafter RC1991; Lau et al., 1997; Tompkins and Craig, 1999; Lindzen et al., 2001, hereafter LCH2001; Hartmann and Larson, 2002; Del Genio and Kovari, 2002; Bony et al., 2004; Lin et al., 2006]. However, no consensus has been reached regarding whether high-altitude clouds increase or decrease with SST and whether they provide a positive or negative climate feedback.

Thus the text appearing in the Lindzen article:

The consensus view is that increased sea surface temperature would result in increased cirrus clouds which would have the effect of warming the sea surface further and thus there would be positive feedback.

Also, this 11-author study is critical of the Lindzen-Chou-Hou Iris hypothesis. Therefore, the above-cited text from the article is factually incorrect; there is no "consensus," and the wording needs to be changed. Comments? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should note that they are talking about different kinds of clouds (cumulus et al) not just cirrus. It may also enlighten you to read the conclusion of the paper. You are doing original research here. If you need a cite for the consensus - it can be found in the AR4. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, a page number in AR4 would be good 'cause I can't find it. Currently, saying without a reference that "the consensus view is X" is, indeed, original research. For all the reader knows, this might be a consensus of 2 Wikipedia editors. I have added a verification tag to the article. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Belated thanks to Atmoz whose edit seems to have resolved this matter very sensibly and fairly, whilst at the same time significantly improving the article's readability. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

two things

1. To those who want to remove the section on smoking, on the bet with James Annan, or the section linking Lindzen to ExxonMobil, I suggest that it is currently impossible, as Kim D. Petersen (and others) will simply revert your edit. It doesn't matter how many times, or how many people, delete the section, it will be put back in again, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. The only way this can be removed I suppose is to voice your support for its removal here in the talk page. The last gungho attempt to remove it has simply resulted in more links being added in the article as "evidence" which are of course just pointers to more external Lindzen smear-sites (and not evidence at all...).

2. Does anyone feel they could help complete the section on early work? I must admit that while I have made some progress with it (see link above), the material on CISK & convection is just too difficult for me to make sense of, even in outline. Having this early material put in, in my opinion, will do far more to establish Lindzen's genuine greatness than having the nonsense about smoking et cetera removed in any case. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ref 29...

Kim Dabelstein Petersen, you have predictably reverted my edit to remove the slander ABC piece you recently linked in the article. Said article states that Lindzen was an "active" "denialist" of the link between smoking and cancer. I stand by my contention that this is gutter journalism you have included, but that much is only my opinion. What is not my opinion is that the article makes slanderous, unproveable claims; it cites no sources, and shows no evidence that the journalist has done actual research. In all likelihood, therefore, the journalist's primary source is indeed this very Wikipedia article. It is clearly false that Lindzen has ever been "active" in promoting no link between smoking and cancer. It is also clearly offensive to be referring to anyone as a "denialist" of anything. Your inclusion of this article is therefore contrary to BLP policy, wrong on a number of levels, is potentially libellous, and should be removed immediately. Can you explain why you believe it should be included and why you reverted my edit? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree I'm wrong to call it gutter journalism, as it's written by a scientist, not a journalist. Perhaps that's the inherent problem here, and perhaps Professor Barry Brook ought to be forgiven for being misinformed by Wikipedia, still regrettably the most likely source of his incorrect information... Alex Harvey (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Its reliably sourced, the rest is your opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, very well, so I look to the bottom of this Don't be swindled piece of yours to where I might reasonably expect to find your writer's "reliable sources" and I find... I find... um... it's blank, Kim. Blankness. Go on, have a look. Blanky. Then I read word for word again the section that deals with Lindzen -- "...Amongst the selected contrarian 'experts' Durkin has rallied to his cause, there are ... Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen (who, in earlier incarnations, had been active denialists of the link between passive smoking and lung cancer, despite neither having any medical expertise). Investigative journalism has revealed that many of the interviewees...". So really, that's it. Did you mean bias or sources? I can find plenty of bias, the bias in the piece is palpable. So I re-read the rest of the article, although I should be working, and I find... na-da, zip. I put it to you, Kim, that it is not reliably sourced, but unsourced, as I said. Don't waste my time. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough WP:RS is about our (ie. WP's) references - not what references the references give. That is something that we leave entirely to the editorial process elsewhere. I'm not going to be dragged into discussing what your or my opinion here is. Read the very first sentence in WP:V please. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and one can take in isolation a Wikipedia regulation such as this one to justify just about anything. Somewhere or other in those regulations it says that you ought to avoid using articles that show an obvious bias, you ought to be extra careful when dealing with living people, you ought to avoid gratuitously linking in negative material such as this. Let's take it to the BPL noticeboard... Alex Harvey (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I have to say I'm disappointed at the audacity you have to argue for the inclusion of this material. I've seen you rail on the inclusion of op-eds as sources more than any other editor I know (sample: [2] [3] [4] [5]). Even if the op-ed were usable on this page, don't you see a WP:WEIGHT problem here? You're adding a whole section based on a parenthetical statement where he's grouped with another person in an op-ed and one sentence in a Newsweek interview? No way this meets the bar, I'm removing it. Oren0 (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you may want to assume good faith? The reference is correctly an Op-Ed, but it is not used as the primary reference, that is the Guterl article, which is not an Op-Ed. Your removal thus seems rather strange, and quite a bit more personal than you may want it to. (you know content not person?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This section is discussing the ABC op-ed, which you claim to meet WP:RS. Given that it makes potentially disparaging comments in a BLP as an aside, it doesn't meet the bar. I'm also curious how you think the two mentions totaling fewer than 50 words justify a whole top-level section roughly equal in length to the "career" section. Oren0 (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole section was quite deliberately written so that the Guterl biography was treated as if an Op-Ed (ie. in the form "in X, Y states"). The second reference was used to show that we aren't talking about a single instance (we could have found others). (iirc) Chris Mooney's republican war contains much the same. There may be a weight issue (which i dispute, since Lindzen actually is quite frank on this (and to some extent i agree with him on this particular issue)), i seem to recall a mention in Stern magazine (german) as well. And it is an elephant in the room (search "lindzen passive smoking"). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are sources demonstrating weight, by all means include them and reintroduce the section. All I'm saying is that the sources that were there when I removed the section did not justify the section's inclusion, especially given that the Guterl ref talks about cancer not being linked to smoking at all, rather than passive smoking as the section claimed. Oren0 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian A. Schmidt, well known for sharing the same bias as Petersen in the blogosphere, has reverted Oren0's edit. Revision history says "per KDP's reasoning" although there is no reasoning here, of course, to appeal to; this is an unambiguous violation of Wikipedia policy. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know I was well known. Anyway, the section should stay, at very least with Guterl but probably with both cites for KDP's reasons. I have read Mooney, and when I can find my copy I'll dig out what it says.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"The section should stay" is not an argument. Please address the facts that the op-ed doesn't meet WP:RS, the Guterl piece doesn't mention passive smoking at all, and that a single sentence in one reliable source is currently propping a section as long as the one on his entire career, flying in the face of WP:UNDUE. Saying "for KDP's reasons" isn't particularly persuasive either since Kim hasn't addressed these points. Oren0 (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your assertion that the Op-Ed doesn't meet WP:RS is wrong, at least you haven't given any rationale except that its an Op-Ed. It cannot be used for main sourcing on BLP info... Correct. But it can be used as a secondary reference. So far your reasoning has been one of weight, which may be correct, but i doubt it, based upon my reading of various references. It would be very good to get a direct quote from Mooney though, i'll ask my library for a copy as well. The Stern reference which i talked about earlier has so far been elusive due to the large amount of results resulting from a google search. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

re: "elephant in the room". Trouble is, Petersen et al. have created the elephant. The elephant is real, don't get me wrong. The trouble is, the source of the internet folklore on Lindzen & smoking is the Wikipedia article in question. It has been shown clearly above in the talk page, i.e. there is no other primary source material to be found after several years, other than the Guterl article. Chris Mooney's book, KDP hasn't read it. I await a verbatim quote from the same text to show that Mooney's source is neither Wikipedia nor Guterl. I don't expect this to be forthcoming. I can only say, it is about time that someone does take legal action against Wikipedia here as the only way Wikipedia can be saved from itself. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I took Petersen's advice and googled "Lindzen passive smoking". Here are my findings:

hit 1) copies material from the Guterl article

hit 2) the Wikipedia article itself on Lindzen

hit 3) a blog discussion on the Philip Morris document shown above to not to be actual evidence.

hit 4) an old copy of the Wikipedia article, copied verbatim to some other wiki...

hit 5) a blog discussion citing Wikipedia as the source of Lindzen's views on smoking...

hit 6) a verbatim copy of the current Wikipedia, copied to another wiki.....

hit 7) greenpeace discussion of Lindzen & the Philip Morris document (see 3 above, inapplicable as evidence).

hit 8) blog discussion that quotes the current Wikipedia article.

hit 9) another article linking Lindzen & smoking via direct quotation of the Guterl article.

hit 10) a random blogger who doesn't give his source (likely source therefore Wikipedia).

Do I need to continue? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but your are asserting - not showing. Yes, any Google search will result in a lot of blog postings and wikipedia copies. To claim that the information comes from WP ignores that there are sources using it from before WP had an article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Google results are not an argument for inclusion. Besides, the article was less of the form "in X, Lindzen states" and more of the form "Lindzen claims Y" based on an aside in an interview: "Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, may be overstated." This is not substantiated by the source, which doesn't even mention passive smoking. Again, one sentence in one reliable source does not justify this section. Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that Wikipedia's coverage of the subject was longer than sum total of coverage that has been shown in reliable sources? Oren0 (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly undue weight is given to this subject. This is the total content from the references about smoking:

Amongst the selected contrarian 'experts' Durkin has rallied to his cause, there are Tim Ball and Patrick Michaels (who also happen to deny that CFCs cause damage to the ozone layer), and Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen (who, in earlier incarnations, had been active denialists of the link between passive smoking and lung cancer, despite neither having any medical expertise).[6]

Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.[7]

This is what was in the WP article:

Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, may be overstated. In 2001, Newsweek journalist Fred Guterl reported, after an interview with Lindzen, "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.

The first sentence is referenced to the ABC piece, which only mentions Lindzen in passing. The second sentence is a direct quote from the Newsweek piece that makes it appear it is about Lindzen and smoking. But it's not. That's all there is in the Newsweek article about Lindzen and smoking. -Atmoz (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving my response to Kim above down here because the discussion appears to have forked.

• "I'm sorry but your assertion that the Op-Ed doesn't meet WP:RS is wrong, at least you haven't given any rationale except that its an Op-Ed." Let's play guess who said it: "The referenced article is an Op-Ed, and either requires 'according to <op-ed-writer> ....' or a correct citation." ([8]). And that wasn't even on a BLP, so the requirement is even stronger here. Or how about this one: "Op-Ed's are opinions by individuals, which is printed in some media. They follow most of the SPS guidelines because they are personal opinions. They do rank somewhat above WP:SPS in reliability." ([9]). Given that an SPS cannot be used as a source on a BLP at all, it's hard to argue that this op-ed, especially not qualified with "according to X", would be allowed to make a statement of fact.
• "It cannot be used for main sourcing on BLP info... Correct. But it can be used as a secondary reference." The op-ed is the only source presented thus far that mentions passive smoking. I'd be curious to know what the primary reference is for the sentence "Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, may be overstated" is.
• "So far your reasoning has been one of weight, which may be correct, but i doubt it, based upon my reading of various references." WP:PROVEIT. Alex's cursory googling above hasn't been fruitful in producing sources. Can you do better? If so, please show us the sources. Your assertion that they exist can't be used to include material on the page.

Oren0 (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Republican War on Science adds after discussing Lindzen's established scientific credentials: "At the same time, however, Lindzen remains a controversial figure known for his highly contrary bent. A smoker, he has reportedly even questioned how strong the link is between cigarette smoking and lung cancer." Page 93 of the hardcover version, one of three cites to Lindzen in the book. Besides adding to the notability of this aspect of Lindzen, RWOS also indicates why it's important, that Lindzen is of "highly contrary bent".Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, that quote still doesn't mention passive smoking. Second, "questioning" the link between smoking and lung cancer is not at all the same as claiming that the risks may be overstated, as it says nothing of the numerous other health effects of smoking. Oren0 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian, so in other words, Mooney doesn't cite any sources either. Is that correct? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, he just says it's been reported.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Alex, secondary sources do not need to cite their sources. Mooneys book is a clear reliable source, and independently notable. So there are now 2 RS' for this +1 Op-Ed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say Mooney's book is a RS that Lindzen has been reported to doubt the smoking-cancer link, which isn't quite the same as being a RS for Lindzen doubting the link. However, it does add to notability. And the Newsweek article is enough of a RS. As for weight, I'd guess that overlaps quite a bit with notability - seems like notability should be the threshold for inclusion, and weight determines how much of the article should discuss the issue. I'd agree that this section should be short, but it should still be included.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian, not to labour the point, but this doesn't follow at all. My googling above per KDP's suggestion has demonstrated very clearly what is known as a "feedback loop" -- see WP:BLP -- where Wikipedia itself is the most widely-cited source of the story about Lindzen & smoking, out ranking Guterl by about 2 to 1. If Mooney had done research, he would have cited sources. If he didn't cite a source, it means he probably didn't do any research. Assuming good faith on Mooney's part, it follows that he's most likely using Wikipedia as his source, and possibly using Guterl as his source, and it's highly unlikely he's using any other source (otherwise, he would tell us since his objective is to explain why we shouldn't take Lindzen seriously). Alex Harvey (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You're speculating Alex. The Newsweek article isn't hard to find especially for anyone with Nexis access. It seems a plausible source for Mooney, although that's speculation too. What I said is that Mooney demonstrated the fact had been reported (although we knew that already) and further adds to notability. The only issue is weight. And then there's the issue of the tobacco documentation, which I believe is inappropriately excluded from this article.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am speculating nothing. a) Google shows that Wikipedia is by far the most widely cited source of Lindzen's alleged views on the link between smoking & cancer on the internet. b) Mooney's text, which cites no sources at all, is an assertion and it "demonstrates" nothing. We're talking about the ABCs of scholarship here. The only thing this can be said to establish is a question mark over Mooney's diligence as a scholar. c) It follows quite logically that if Mooney doesn't cite his sources, the most likely source of his information is the same as the most widely-cited source, which is Wikipedia. d) The tobacco document? You mean the one that attributes nothing at all to Lindzen other than a statement to the effect that "scientists aren't always right" and completely fails to connect him in any way with anything at all to do with tobacco? e) the Guterl: There is no record of Lindzen's view here at all. Given that it is brought up as an aside in order to show something else about Lindzen's personality, it provides absolutely no evidence of anything. Let it go, this is a Wikipedia-generated feedback loop. A statement by Guterl has been turned into something more than it ever was originally by Wikipedia editors and this has passed into folklore as a new fact that regrettably is being copied into print media. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely original research, and it has nothing to do here. To commnet on these: a) You are basing your opinion on a probe of the blogosphere (which is what Google returns in this case), and thus you get confirmation bias, to get a feel you'd need to be able to subtract blogs, comments etc. b) Mooney is a WP:RS and does not need to cite references, it makes no difference to WP. c) No. It does not (and its original research). d) no opinion e) You are just like in (b) confusing where verification is needed. A WP:RS does not need to state its sources, that is inherent in the RS flag (which is based on editorial prowess of the source).

It is very simple: Mooney and Guterl are reliable sources. And that is the only thing we can use here. Speculation on where/how they got to that - is outside the bounds of WP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Kim, in other words you're saying "stuff the truth, WP regulations allow me to include it." Meanwhile, the fact that Wikipedia regards any arbitrary statement in print media, even a statement that fails to cite sources, as by definition reliable, is highly questionable. I suppose it would follow that any "facts" found in L. Ron Hubbard are also reliably sourced.

At any rate, this is all moot as the real issue is of course WEIGHT and it doesn't matter how many of these one-liners you find, you'll never establish weight. You also have ignored the other points that Oren0 has just made; unsurprisingly as they are clearly unanswerable. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hubbard's books are not reliable sources. Thats the difference that matters to wikipedia. Your argument is turning into one of "i don't like it". Oren0's comments are for the most part about the op-ed, and that source is not used to provide the backing, but only as an additional example. Op-Ed's can correctly not be used to back a statement, but only to expand/nuance it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I think we've said all that can be said on this matter. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)