Talk:Lawrence Solomon - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KslotteBot (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 3 September 2010 (Aan template: dropping type=content, since the parameter has been deprecated, using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:51, 3 September 2010 by KslotteBot (talk | contribs) (Aan template: dropping type=content, since the parameter has been deprecated, using AWB)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

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

Template:Community article probation

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

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

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Lawrence Solomon (2010-02-13). "Lawrence Solomon: Who am I? According to Misplaced Pages, I'm everything but an environmentalist". National Post. Archived from the original on 2010-02-21. Who am I? Whenever I wonder, I check in on Misplaced Pages, to get the latest surmise. At different times I've been described as a writer, blogger, coffee-shop owner, global warming denier, astroturfer and entrepreneur. One description I haven't usually found on Misplaced Pages, at least not over the last 18 months — is of me as an environmentalist, the only occupation I've continually engaged in over the last 30 years.

"Insuffecient evidence to call him environmentalist," explained Raul654, one Wikipedian, in rejecting another Wikipedian's description of me as an environmentalist as inadequate. The rejected Wikipedian had cited references to me as an environmentalist in the Financial Post, The American Spectator, and The Washington Times. {{cite news}}: line feed character in |quote= at position 412 (help)

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Canada may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Lawrence_Solomon (talk · contribs) / Solomon, Lawrence Solomon, Lawrence

Last call on the {{disputed}} tag...

I asked Verbal above for justification of the {{disputed}} tag, but he may have missed it. I have presented three points that support Solomon being labeled environmentalist: (1) he claims it himself, (2) others have called him that in reliable sources (though it is argued that those sources are not strong), (3) he founded an organization (Energy Probe) which reliable sources call an "environmental group" and an "environmental research group". Point (3) is compelling, since it strongly enforces the first two by providing evidence of his environmental activity. I therefore believe the disputed tag is unwarranted, and I plan to remove it unless someone presents a reliable source that indicates otherwise. ATren (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How about you actually read the discussion above instead of ignoring it and starting all over again? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I did. The sourcing is more than sufficient for me, especially considering his easily verifiable record of involvement in environmental causes and groups. I believe your dispute of the label is spurious, you've provided no counter evidence, so I will remove the tag if there is no other evidence presented. ATren (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a discussion over the disputed tag. I personally believe this article is written in a neutral manner, the sources are fair and represneted accurately, and the tag can come off. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been 2 days with no activity here. I am removing the tag. ATren (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I cannot find exactly why there is a disputed tag. I noticed the description of Energy Probe here does not match the one in the article on Energy Probe by the way. --BozMo talk 21:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care about the dispute tag. But I've removed "env", per the discussion above. Hopefully at some point ATren will find the time to read and answer it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverted you per the discussion above, and all the sources presented mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC, you've completely ignored my points above. If Mark hadn't reverted I would have. As I've said I read the sections and there is no good argument for removing the label. ATren (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also point out that environmentalist can be an occupation, what do you call the guy who runs greenpeace? He`s an enviro and that`s his occupation right? mark nutley (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is an occupation if you get paid for it. Otherwise it is a vocation. You've produced zero evidence that he is paid for it William M. Connolley (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don`t need to, your the one saying enviro is not an occupation. Anyway he must get paid for running Energy Probe, so there ya go. mark nutley (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have any evidence he is paid by Energy Probe, it should go into the article. If you haven't, you should stop asserting it William M. Connolley (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, ignore this nonsense. There is no requirement that the label be an occupation. ATren (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Working for Greenpeace makes you an activist (or an accountant, manager, clerk, custodian...). Guettarda (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda, "environmental activist" is probably a more accurate label for what goes in the infobox and I'll put it there. Also, I'll email Solomon and ask if he has any objection to being labled as a "free-market environmentalist." Cla68 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla, I've already emailed Solomon, and he replied; I don't have time to post a detailed reply right now, but I will post it later tonight. ATren (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I already emailed him also. Cla68 (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Environmental activist"? What source calls him that? Guettarda (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Free market environmentalist"

I have reverted "free market environmentalist" back to the unadorned environmentalist for two reasons:

I emailed Lawrence Solomon about the free-market environmentalist label, and he has indicated that it does not describe him, and in fact, that it has been used pejoratively by left-leaning organizations.
the single source which calls him that (and only in passing, BTW) is a document hosted at probeinternational.com but which originally appeared in a magazine called Canadian Dimension. Canadian Dimension is "a Canadian leftist magazine".

Being that I see no reliably sourced justification for the "free market" label other than a partisan magazine, and given that the BLP himself considers the term inaccurate and pejorative, the term is not appropriate and I have removed it. ATren (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Generic "environmentalist" appears to be the safest, most neutral term to use. Cla68 (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the majority of sources call him an environmentalist with just the one calling him a free market one mark nutley (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So, because the individual presented wants to be seen as an "environmentalist," but liberal authors don't call him an environmentalist, instead a "free market environmentalist" (which, we all agree, describes him more fully), we decide to ignore one PoV entirely? That seems like a violation of NPOV to me. But, it's become clear the skeptic cabal has shown up here and will do what it normally does to drive away NPOV editors, so I'll leave. Hipocrite (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't agree he's a "free market environmentalist". But, thank you for leaving. ATren (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a personal issue with what you just said, Hipocrite, but I'll take it up on your talk page. Cla68 (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

SO do I: you're a "skeptic" not a skeptic. But never mind: FME is supported by RS; you just happen to dislike it. LS's own opinion on the matter (even if we knew it; an unverified email is worthless and should not have been mentioned; we should certainly give it zero weight) is irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There is but one source calling him a FME, dozens calling him an enviro. The weight is on what the majority of sources call him, not one partisan left wing rag mark nutley (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because one PoV is less common than others doesn't mean we can completly exclude it from articles. The fact that liberals call him a "free market environmentalist" is sourced, and verifiable, from his own site. Hipocrite (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because one PoV is less common than others doesn't mean we can completly exclude it from articles Of course we can and it is done all the time in the CC articles, i believe the usual argument is weight mark nutley (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, then, you'll be able to show me where the notable liberal PoV that he's a "free market environmentalist" is addressed in other articles, right? You'll also be able to show peer reviewed studies showing that only a tiny minority of informed individuals think he's either not an environmentalist or not a free-market environmentalist, right? Hipocrite (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Only a tiny minority of people think he is not an environmentalist, and they are either here on this talk page or on desmogblog spouting the usual junk. The rest of your comment makes as little sense as those who oppose calling an environmentalist an environmentalist mark nutley (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we are to trust a single, very partisan magazine for Solomon's label, and put that in the lede? Is that what you are saying? Because that opens up quite a wide door on all the BLPs in this topic area. I'm sure Heartland Institute will have some very interesting labels to put in the lede of the Climategate scientists' BLPs. NPOV demands that the standard has to be level across all articles, and if that means lowering the standard here to the point where partisan sources are allowed to define this BLP, then it should be applied to all. I prefer a higher standard, but if this small groups of editors absolutely insists in pushing partisan opinion prominently into these few skeptic BLPs, then it must be done in all BLPs. ATren (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV demands that the standard has to be level across all articles - whilst I agree that consistency is good, I'm dubious about you sourcing such an assertion to NPOV. Could you quote which lines of the policy state this? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know it's not stated explicitly in the policy pages (because they tend to deal with individual articles) but do you dispute the basic premise that NPOV implies consistent standards? ATren (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted per BLP

Verbal reverted a bunch of my edits, and in the process, he included the free-market environmentalist label in the lede, which is cited to a single person writing for an obscure liberal Canadian Magazine. This is clearly not notable and given LS's own indication that he considers it a pejorative, it is a BLP violation to include it. In my version (which Verbal reverted) I included the "free-market environmental" claim with its source in the references section, but it does NOT belong in the lede. I have cited BLP exemption in my revert. ATren (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Note also: one of my edits apparently removed the disputed/npov tags, which I did not intend to do, and which I have restored (even though I believe them to be wrong) until this dispute is settled. ATren (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC) This was the offending edit, which I am now working to undo. ATren (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC) OK, as of this edit, I have restored the material I deleted (mostly my own recent additions, but also the disputed/pov tags). I don't know how that happened, but I found it strange at the time of the offending edit that I got an edit conflict even though there was no other intervening edit, so it may have been a software glitch. ATren (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

disputed and npov tags

The tags went up shortly before protection, so let's start discussing it so they can come down when protection expires. Is this solely about the environmentalist label? If so, what's the problem? Why is this so controversial? Solomon wrote a book called "The Conserver Solution" which helped inspire a conservation movement. He started Energy Probe, which is clearly an environmental group, and described that way in many reliable sources (despite WMC's POV that it is not). Now, recent references to Solomon have referred to him by his roles as writer and/or EP researcher, but that does not disqualify him from the environmentalist label.

I am shocked that this has gone on for so long -- two years the same group of editors has persistently (and tendentiously) fought the environmentalist label. Solomon himself has even commented on the folly of it . This all seems to have started because one single person, who also happens to be a Misplaced Pages editor, formed the opinion that Solomon really isn't an environmentalist and has relentlessly pushed that opinion here for two years. In fact, in his own blog posting where he expresses his unfounded views about Solomon, he admits that he couldn't find anything negative ("Thanks to all those who commented and/or mailed. Probably the most interesting thing about all this is the lack of info about him, which is curious for 'Canadas leading envirnomentalist'."), yet he has still pushed that opinion here for two years.

So the question is: does anyone have any reliable source which questions Solomon's environmentalist credentials? And if not, why are you still edit warring on this? This should be a no brainer, but because of a few tendentious editors (at least one of which should be banned by now, because he's done as much damage as any sock), we are still arguing this obvious point.

Now, if someone can't come up with some evidence to counter the very solid evidence already presented on his environmentalist credentials, can we put this to rest once and for all?

As to the "free-market" label -- it appeared as a passing reference in ONE very partisan and obscure source, and is not at all appropriate for the lede. But I have kept the source in the footnote, qualified, to reflect that one person has called him "free market". Even that is more weight than it deserves. ATren (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You are censoring one PoV because it's liberal. Until such time as the text makes it clear that a reliable source - one Lawrence Solomon has himself reprinted has called him a "free-market environmentalist" the NPOV tag must remain. Hipocrite (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: Are you saying that POV dispute is about whether the phrase "free-market" is used? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's why I added the tag - because you censored "free-market" due to the fact that it was the opinion of a liberal source - above Atren wrote he was removing FME because it "has been used pejoratively by left-leaning organizations." Hipocrite (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: I believe that you have me confused with another editor. I don't believe that I removed "free-market". In any case, what do the sources say? Do they describe with as an free-market environmentalist or just an environmentalist? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I did. Sources disagree. Some sources call him an Environmentalist. Other sources call him a free-market environmentalist. ATren believes only liberal sources call him a free-market environmentalist, and so that PoV can be ignored. Hipocrite (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the sources call him an environmentalist—such as the CBC; the National Post (which he writes a column for); the Washington Times, and this academic paper. Or they refer in similar terms to his group, Energy Probe. Apparently one source, Canadian Dimension, has called him a free-market environmentalist. SlimVirgin 00:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not true, SV. ATren wrote that Solomon said to him that " has been used pejoratively by left-leaning organizations." Are you failing to assume ATren's good faith? Hipocrite (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Canadian Dimension, but all sources have a bias. We can't reject a source simply because it is liberal-leaning anymore that we can reject a source because it's conservative-leaning. If the majority of sources describe him as an "environmentalist", then that's how we should describe him. However, to resolve this dispute, how about we add a sentence in the body that Canadian Dimension has decribed Solomon as a "free-market environmentalist"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Dimension is the only source which called him "free market" -- an obscure left-leaning magazine that describes itself as "a magazine which shows there is an alternative to the corporate agenda and the dictates of the global market" . That's the source (and the only source) which Hipocrite wants to use to justify labeling a BLP in the lede. It's a travesty the way these editors push their POV in these BLPs. ATren (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what you said when you wrote " has been used pejoratively by left-leaning organizations." That's "organizations" - plural. I assumed good faith on your part - were you misrepresenting things? Hipocrite (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is one source for this, an obscure Canadian magazine. Stop pushing your POV here. Your actions are no different than someone adding opinion from the Heritage Foundation to the lede of Michael Mann or some or some other Climate scientist. If the playing field were level, you and WMC would already be blocked for this kind of tendentious editing of BLPs. ATren (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, do you accept AQFK's compromise suggestion? Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know - it appears to be a specific attribution. I wonder if we could find some of the other "organizations" that ATren referred to. In the absence of them, yes, that's fine. I wonder, are you going to file and RFE for ATren saying that I engage in "tendentious editing of BLPs," which, in addition to being far more offensive than accusations of cabalism, is transparently false - my edits to skeptical BLPs have been assiduously not tendentious, and no one has presented any evidence anywhere to the contrary. Hipocrite (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is already there -- it's in the footnote where all the other sources are described. It doesn't deserve more than that, because it is a non-notable opinion from a partisan source. In fact, it's so obscure, even that's too much. ATren (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with AQFK's suggestion. If we ever find anyone other than Canadian Dimension that has called him a free-market environmentalist, we can add them later. SlimVirgin 01:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

SV, do we typically add the opinions of partisan sources to BLPs? What would happen if someone introduced Heritage Foundation opinion into a mainstream-view climate scientist's BLP? This source does not belong here, period. ATren (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, if Canadian Dimension is allowed here, why is Lawrence Solomon's published opinion of WMC not permitted? That was published at CBS News and is far more notable than Canadian Dimension, yet it's been kept out of WMC's BLP. This is a double standard, plain and simple. ATren (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Because we don't use unreliable sources - as you may remember, that LS piece is not a reliable source, in that it includes things we know to be false. Further, we don't use opinion pieces in BLPs - the CD piece doesn't appear to be an opinion piece, nor does the Western Standard piece below. Still further, we don't edit articles in ways we don't feel improve the encyclopedia to get vengeance on others for providing better arguments in content disputes, per WP:POINT. Hipocrite (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop Wikilawyering. CD is a partisan source, just like Solomon on WMC. Accepting one and rejecting the other is POV, plain and simple. But then, pretty much every article in this topic area is POV and has been since 2004, and you've been a part of that, so I don't expect you to recognize it. ATren (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is one LS piece that contains false material because he misunderstood how WP works, but the rest of his articles are reliable sources. SlimVirgin 02:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. This one, for example, contains opinion you (Hipocrite) may disagree with, but nothing demonstrably false. ATren (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting - - WP:NEWSBLOG of Western Standard - conservative, calls him a FME while awarding him something. Hipocrite (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Compromise

As a compromise, I've removed the tags and the disputed sentence. The first paragraph now reads:

"Lawrence Solomon is the founder and executive director of Energy Probe, a Canadian environmental agency. His writing has appeared in a number of newspapers, including The National Post where he has a column, and he is the author of several books on energy resources, urban sprawl, and global warming, among them The Conserver Solution (1978), Energy Shock (1980), Toronto Sprawls: A History (2007), and The Deniers (2008).

By the way, I intended to add that I was changing this to the edit summary, but I mistakenly added that I'd added an infobox, and tidied. That was an error, caused by answering the phone when I was supposed to be concentrating. I'm mentioning it only because this is a contentious point, and I don't want anyone to think the edit summary was deliberately misleading. SlimVirgin 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

SV: You're not the first to accidentally put in an incorrect edit summary. When I've did it, I self-reverted and then remade my change with a correct edit summary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. I'll do that in future, thanks. SlimVirgin 19:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Climate change: Munk Debates", Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 4, 2009.

Categories: