Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:04, 10 November 2007

Template:Hurricane

Deletion of Source and Revision of Quote

I deleted one of the sources and revised the quote to "I'll take on any scientist in the field to talk about this...." The source I deleted converted "to talk about this" into an ellipsis. In my opinion, they did it to intentionally imply that he made a bet. It's obvious from the following source (still anti-Gray, so I doubt they would have likewise "fixed" the quote) that this is the correct quote. I've deleted the original quote source and moved up the following one, since their "massaging" of his words makes them automatically dubious.--MikeJ9919 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added a couple of links to two recent news articles, both lengthy, but extensively researched and well-written. Margie 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

LA Times article

• Like many hurricane forecasters, Gray rejects the theory that the recent uptick in storms is due to climate change. He points out that the U.S. had an unusually low number of storms from the 1970s o the end of the century and says the law of averages is simply catching up. But he goes further and dismisses the view — accepted as fact by most scientists — that recent warmer temperatures are caused by man-made greenhouse gases.

• "It's one of the greatest hoaxes ever," Gray says of global warming, theorizing that it's an alarmist hypothesis made to snare research dollars. Gray believes that climbing temperatures are caused by cyclical warming in the oceans, and that the globe will cool down again in the next 10 to 15 years.

What's the best way to incorporate the 2 quotes above? --Wing Nut 20:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Note

I removed the following note

(note that warming is closer to 0.5 °C over the last 3 decades)

The note is incorrect he says quite clearly that he is speaking of sea surface warming, while the graph shows compiled warming from multiple sources, if you read the dataset, and find the sea surface warming chart you will see that he is quite correct in his quote. PPGMD 13:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha! You're right... William M. Connolley 13:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, The Bet

re: KimDabelsteinPetersen (→Stance on global warming - reinsert bet - its part of who and what Gray is. The information is sourced and attributable.)

Can we get a biographer in here (and over on Richard Lindzen's page too)? This silly "climate bet" thing has been re-entered in the biography of possibly the world's greatest hurricane expert -- and in this case (Kim - take note) the challenging bettor in not a scientist at all but a gadfly blogger who brags on his blog about aggrandizing himself by entering his little hobby results in Misplaced Pages and rants piteously about how he wants to be just like James Annan. The interesting thing about the story is only that Gray had the manners and good graces to talk to Brian Schmidt at all.

A single phone-call from a total stranger who has no standing in the field of tropical cyclones, weather, climate science or anything else discernible, in which the caller makes the nutty suggestion that a venerable scientist of Gray's standing bet him (the unknown caller) a substantial amount of money about how much the planet will or will not warm over the next XX number of years...is ridiculous on its face. It certainly is not a matter to be reported in what is hoped to become a serious international reference work, though if repeated, such calls would quite rightly be be reported to Dr. Gray's local police department as some form of harassment.

Insisting that this single-phone-call-from-a-total-stranger is "part of who and what Gray is" is pathetic. Can we get a real biographer in here - one without a drum to beat? KipHansen 04:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Once Again, The Bet

13 April - I have re-deleted Brian Schmidt's comments about the non-bet on climate change. It clearly violates the policies on Biographies of Living Persons section as follows:

Reliable Sources "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception."

It is based on a Brian Schmidt's own report of a single private telephone conversation that is said to have taken place in November 2005. The report appears in Brian Schmidt's blog. Brian Schmidt's blog reveals that he is intentionally challenging famous climate scientists (whose views differ from his own) to "bets" to embarrass them. No one Brain has "contacted" has been willing to make a bet with him.

This entry further violates the policies on NPOV - BIAS - Scientific "Scientific: favoring a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason." (In this case, non-favoring ;-)

If this section is again re-inserted, I will request Page Protection for this page on the basis that editors with personal bias are attempting to hijack this biography based on their personal views about climate change.

KipHansen 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As per above, I have officially requested Page Protection on this page.

KipHansen 17:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement about the bet has to go. Gray's declaration of willingness to "take on" any scientist is clearly an invitation to debate. To respond with a proposal to bet is disrespectful and irrelevant. The juxtaposition of the report of Gray's ignoring the bet proposal with the report of his challenge to debate only serves to cast doubt on the sincerity of the latter. This is a cheap shot, and arguable defamatory. A scientist who declares willingness to debate with anyone is under no obligation to accept bets, and his refusal to do so should not be used in WP (or elsewhere) to cast doubt on his integrity. --Nasorenga 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Does Gray believe what he is saying or not? If he does, he'd be happy to bet on it. Why not? Its not a cheap shot, its a proper test William M. Connolley 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have request this Page to be Protected

I have again removed the line about Brian Schmidt's phone call to Bill Gray, based on the following policies regarding Biographies of Living Persons.

The sourced material clearly violates:

Reliable Sources

"Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs SHOULD NEVER BE USED, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception."

Bias

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. Scientific:

favoring a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason

A Wiki editor MUST:

"Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

EDITORS SHOULD REMOVE ANY CONTENTIOUS MATERIAL ABOUT LIVING PERSONS THAT is unsourced, relies upon sources that DO NOT MEET STANDARDS SPECIFIED IN WIKIPEDIA:ATTRIBUTION, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. EDITORS WHO RE-INSERT THE MATERIAL MAY BE WARNED AND BLOCKED."

The "bet" piece violates the following:

"Biased or malicious content

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article

specifically." Further, the phrase "like fellow skeptic Richard Lindzen," is entirely irrelevant to Gray's biogrpahy, and violates:

"Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association."

(nb: Brian Schmidt did not contact Richard Lindzen. Whatever Dr. Lindzen's reasons may have been for not placing a bet with some other person about a related subject, including this comment is Gray's biography is improper. Its inclusion shows the clear attempt to insert POV judgments.)

Further, I have asked that a Biography Administrator look at this page to prevent further vandalism of this sort.

Editors who insist on re-inserting the section are in danger of being warned or blocked per the above policy.

KipHansen 19:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Note to Administrator: The section "Gray also stated, "I'll take on any scientist in this field to talk about this, I predict that in 5 to 8 years the globe will begin to cool". " violates allof the same Policies stated above. The "source" is a critics attack page in which reports that "if you listen to the video" of Gray's testimony to Congress, you will hear Gray make this statement. It should be deleted unless it can be found in the Congressional Record or other "Reliable Source".

KipHansen 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Kip, but Brian's bet is not the only one - or did you ignore Annan's or Connolley's? Or that they have communications with each other? And both Annan and Connolley are WP:RS sources (both writing within field of expertise) - Both Nature and Science have had articles about these bets - so its definitively WP:Notable as well. --Kim D. Petersen 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Annan and Connelly may be Reliable Sources but that does not give them the right to insert or "bless" material which is unverifiable. Is Brian Schmidt a reliable source? On what grounds? Is his blog nationally recognized? What if I created a blog on blogspot and called up Gray and asked him to make a bet with me. Could I then insert that fact here?

If Nature and Science have articles about these bets, do any of those articles mention Gray? If so, please cite them and let's move on. The critical question here is not whether or not Gray refused the bet. The question is whether the assertion is verifiable. And it hinges on whether or not Schmidt's blog is a reliable source. WP:RS would seem to indicate that it is not.

--Richard 19:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim - See my comments to C below. It does not matter how many failed (or successful) climate bets there have been, that is irrelevant. Neither Annan nor Connlley are involved in any way the Brian Schmidt's self-reported single phone call to Bill Gray, so their possible standing as WP:RSs is also irrelevant. They can not be Reliable Sources for something they know nothing about-- Brian's self-reported phone call to Bill Gray.

It is the SOURCE that is the problem - unless you can find a true Wiki Policy on Biographies of Living Persons Reliable Source that supports this supposed attempt by Brian Schmidt to place a bet with Bill Gray, it can not be included. Ideally, you would need something published or reliably quoted from Bill Gray himself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.

KipHansen 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The prot req has been declined, of course William M. Connolley 21:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Kip, page protection is inappropriate here. Read Misplaced Pages:Protection policy to see why. Page protection is not for content disputes.

Kip, your next step would normally be to request a third opinion although you already have mine. You could make a request for comment and, if that doesn't help, request mediation. Consult dispute resolution procedures for more info.

--Richard 19:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Connlley - I have reported the leap-frog revert system you and Kim have developed to the Administrator. Rest assured, Wiki-policy will eventually be enforced - that's how this thing works.

KipHansen 21:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To what administrator did you report it? Connolley is an admin, too, in case you didn't know. Follow the dispute resolution procedure. --Richard 19:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

POV editors like yourself and Kim can not hold a page hostage forever - It will eventually get corrected, then locked against your actions, which I consider vandalism, as they violate clear and simple WP. You are free to write all the POV articles you like on any subject you like, and let the Wiki community edit them or applaud them - but what you can not do is attempt to enforce your personal POV by violating WP on the Biography pages of Living Persons. There are other places for you to state your opinions and for you to see that your opinions are "correctly" characterized.

Biography pages are simply not the place to do it.

KipHansen 21:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My Discussion with Mr. Connolley

To all concerned, and hopefully some Administrators from the Biography Project---

I simply insert below my discussion with Mr. Connolley from his Talk page about the above. Personally, I think that either he has gross mis-understandings about WP of all sorts or simply choses to mis-apply them. I leave this biography in your tender care as well as what to do about Mr. Connolley.

• * *insert starts here* * *

My apology to you

Mr Connolley - First please accept my apology for using the phrase "POV editor" in regards to yourself. I was unaware of how offensive it is considered in wiki-speak. Second, Kim D. Petersen has informed me that you are a WP:RS yourself, in the field of climate science, and auburnpilot has informed me that you are, in fact, a Wkkipedia Administrator. Please excuse my "ignorant newbie" errors regarding this matter. So that I don't embarrass myself again in the same way, could you please explain to me here, in this less public forum, exactly how this bit --

When contacted, like fellow skeptic Richard Lindzen, he refused to accept any bets as to whether temperatures would drop, even bets that survive the bettors' lifespan by being given to a charitable foundation. (In Gray's case, he stated that as a man in his seventies, he did not want to make bets that exceeded his expected lifespan.)

From , the biography of Bill Gray, a living person

does not violate WP:BLP section on RS, or, what exception to the policy justifies its inclusion in contradiction of this policy?

Thus fully informed, I will happily publicly apologize to you on Bill Gray's page and publicly admit to being an "Ignorant Newbie".

I include the section to which I refer here, not because I think you are unfamiliar with it, but so that there will be no mistake about exactly which policy I refer to;

Reliable sources

Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Attribution, and could lead to libel claims.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception.

Thank you for taking time to address this with me, KipHansen 19:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I regard the source as reliable and the material as non-defamatory William M. Connolley 08:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley; Thank you, that seems to clear that up. I didn't even know that a Misplaced Pages Administrator could designate another individual as a "reliable source".

One more little point I'd like to clear up regarding this post. Its about what appeared to me to be a violation of the WP on "No Original Research".

In this case, a chap named Brian Schmidt makes a private personal phone call to Dr. Gray and then records his impressions of the phone call on his personal blog site. Brian then edits the Wiki Biography of Dr. William M. Gray (a living person) to include his report of the phone call, and links to his personal blog.

Can you explain to me how this does not violate WP:No Original Research or what exception to the policy justifies its inclusion in contradiction of this policy?

Thanks again, KipHansen 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand the OR policy. OR applies to wiki-editors not external sources William M. Connolley 07:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• * *insert ends here* * *

KipHansen 23:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

An apology...

I deleted the text about the bet based on reasons that I have outlined above. However, I admit that I did not look at the edit history or at this talk page first. If I had, I would have realized that there was an ongoing revert war over this text. It was not my intent to jump into an edit war. I think KipHansen has a point and I would urge WMC and KDP to reconsider their positions.

--Richard 20:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:V with respect to the purportedly declined bet

Richard - Annann and Connolley are WP:RS - As for Schmidt i have no opinion (WMC seems to think that he is reliable) so far so good. The main issue that Kip raises about the bet is that he considers it defamatory - i fail to see this - Gray's objections to the bet sounds reasonable to me (age). If you remove Schmidt then the betting would stand alone without closure - and no rationale by Gray (which imho is worse). Betting on science issues is not uncommon and have been widely documented. --Kim D. Petersen 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the assertion of defamation. However, there are issues of WP:RS and WP:V here.

Even if we grant that Annann and Connolley are RS, there are problems with the text in question.

First of all, I doubt that there would be support for the idea that being an RS is transitive. Even if we accept A&C as RS, that doesn't means Schmidt is RS because A&C say so. And Schmidt would have to be a nationally recognized blogger like Glenn Reynolds before we could use his blog.

Furthermore, even if A&C were the source directly (leave Schmidt out of the picture for now), the assertion is not verifiable because it is based on a phone call that is not documented in a WP:RS. People aren't reliable sources; published works in academic and scientific journals, major newspapers and magazines, TV/radio broadcasts etc. are. Reliability means the source is not a nutcase. A&C are not nutcases. Verifiability means that I can check that the RS really said that.

Schmidt is not RS but the blog is verifiable.

A&C may be RS but there is no verifiability of what they said on this topic. Have they in fact said anything other than on this Talk Page? Misplaced Pages is not RS either.

Now, if A&C write a letter to Science or Nature stating that they are aware of Gray declining the bet AND the journal publishes the letter we can cite the published letter as verifiable and the journal that the letter is published in is the RS.

With the current mess, there are some RS involved and some V involved but it doesn't add up to anything that is encyclopedic.

Look at it another way... if the material in question WAS defamatory, would you argue that there was RS or V involved here? Could you argue with a straight face that this story was verifiably true?

All of it rests on Schmidt as a reliable source and I can't tell who the heck Schmidt is except for some guy that created a nice Blogspot blog. Is he a scientist, a journalist or just some hothead with a few bucks to spend on a blog account?

--Richard 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Richard's asking for my comments on the matter. I'm not a scientist, I'm an environmental lawyer. While I've been paid for writing published material, I wouldn't consider myself a journalist any more than other bloggers writing about science and politics. I hope I'm not a hothead. Regarding my qualifications, I don't consider myself an authority on general global warming issues, but I can write authoritatively regarding betting over global warming. Only a handful of other people have been involved with or know the betting issue as much or more than I do (James Annan and William Connolley among them). You can verify this by examining my website, following the links to external websites, or generally searching on who analyzes global warming betting in the internet.

Re WP:RS, the policy is "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." I suspect Connolley gives me some credit in this area regarding betting. Blogs seem to be in a gray area at wikipedia, widely used despite some alleged blanket prohibitions on their use. I suspect that a blog that has consistently, reliably published trustworthy material from authoritative sources has established a process that meets WP:RS more than a brand new print publication that claims to edit the pieces it receives. In other words, a judgment call.

I think a way to fudge this might be to say that Gray was reported to have declined a bet and then give the citation. You're not saying he actually declined the bet, just that it was reported.

As for verifiability, feel free to call up Gray, just like I did. And Annan did write that Gray won't bet on Annan's website, which is directly linked to in this betting section.

And by the way, being nationally recognized is not the same as being trustworthy and authoritative.Brian A Schmidt 00:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"a blog that has consistently, reliably published trustworthy material from authoritative sources has established a process that meets WP:RS more than a brand new print publication that claims to edit the pieces it receives" - Brian Schmidt

Yes, I agree but how do we know that your blog meets these criteria? What is the "authoritative" source for the phone call with Gray? You. And who are you? No offense intended but do you have any publications to establish your authoritativeness? Other than your blog? That's the nub of the problem, you see.

"Being nationally recognized is not the same as being trustworthy and authoritative" - Brian Schmidt

This is true. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to determine who is trustworthy and authoritative and so we must go with some objective criterion even if it yields an inferior result. I suspect that this may require some policy thinking in order to determine which blogs are "trustworthy and authoritative".

P.S. Please understand that I'm arguing purely on principle here. I'm not suggesting that you did not actually have the phone call with Gray or that it did not proceed as you reported. What I am saying is that a policy of accepting your self-reported account opens Misplaced Pages to an unending amount of self-reported rubbish. The reliable source and verifiability policies are the only bulwarks that we have to defend against a tide of concocted and fanciful nonsense.

--Richard 04:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've heard my opinion on this issue and the editors here can make up their minds what to do. For my part, I won't revert deletions of the reference to my website and the information about the reason Gray gave for declining the bet - I'll leave that for the collective judgment of everyone else. However, unless someone has a new and convincing argument, I think the section describing Gray's refusal to bet should remain in this article. I may become involved in saving the section if needed.Brian A Schmidt 05:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Brian - accepted and appreciated. See mine below (this date) for comments on the section describing Gray's refusal to bet KipHansen 19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Brian - I have left a lengthy note on your talk page. . KipHansen 00:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard and others: Full disclosure here, just discovered: I quote James Annan's blog "I emailed him some time asking if he will back up this statement with a bet. William Connolley and Brian Schmidt at least have done the same. None of us (to my knowledge) has had the courtesy of a reply. " posted by James Annan at Monday, November 07, 2005

So, as it turns out, Connolley, at least according to Annan (Kim says he's a WP:RS) has been directly involved in the bets! All of this is Original Research being self-edited into the encyclopedia. None of it is verifiable. None of it is WP:RS or WP:BLS.

KipHansen 00:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we had a similar problem on another article. A Wkipedia editor (whom I consider a friend whom I respect as a Misplaced Pages editor) e-mailed a notable WP:RS to ask question and got a reply. However, we agreed that the personal e-mail was not verifiable and therefore not a reliable source that could be quoted even though the person that he got the reply from was a published author and renowned expert whose works are quoted in the Misplaced Pages article. It's not simply a question of whether the person is a reliable source; it's whether the particular work is verifiable so that an uninvolved third party can verify that the reliable source really said what he said. "Call him yourself" is not an adequate verification method.

--Richard 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. How am I directly involved? I mailed Gray and got no reply (or so JA says; it was a while ago) William M. Connolley 11:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Since its not WMC or Annan who are adding the information to the page - there is no COI. As for OR that doesn't fit the bill - we are referring to two sources (scientists writing within their field - about a third scientist) and a third source (Brian). Please read through BLP and RS (in RS you will find that since they are writing within their field it is ok). As for BLP - there are two controversies: 1) Is the comments derogatory? 2) Is the statements sourced. As for #2 thats covered - but #1 is a bit more dodgy - is a bet considered a personal attack/derogatory or otherwise bad information? My personal opinion is: No.

I'll also have to say that while Brians blog is not an RS - it does give an explanation as to Gray's reasons not to take the bet. Without it - there is no information - and (imho) Gray (and the bets) end up with a slightly negative slant towards Gray. Again in my personal opinion Brians call makes the information more neutral - and describes Gray's reasoning as to why he won't bet. (hope this doesn't sound to confused). --Kim D. Petersen 16:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(moving indents back to the margin - getting too deep here - Kip )

Dear All -

Brian Schmidt has agreed not to revert removal of his addition of the reasons for "Gray's refusal to bet".

This leaves only Annan's assertion that Gray has refused to bet. Leaving aside all the questions of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OO, and WP:BLS, let's examine the facts. The only thing Annan says is "I emailed him some time asking if he will back up this statement with a bet. William Connolley and Brian Schmidt at least have done the same. None of us (to my knowledge) has had the courtesy of a reply."

So, what do we have as a factual basis, verifiable or not? One 'not famous' scientist 'says' he emailed Dr. Gray, world famous scientist, with some sort of request that Gray place a bet with him , a total stranger, about future global warming/climate change. Annan says he received no answer.

We have no reason to doubt James Annan - this is what I, personally, would have expected.

Connolley, per above, says "I mailed Gray and got no reply (or so JA says; it was a while ago)". He is no longer certain he did actually email Gray.

So, Schmidt is out, Connolley is out, leaving only Annan.

Annan's "evidence" - a tongue-in-cheek paraphrase here, with advanced apology - "I emailed the very famous and venerable Dr. Bill Gray, demanding/requesting/asking that he bet me about global warming/climate change and he didn't answer."

Apparently, Dr. Gray's email application has a 'delete' button, just like mine. I use mine to delete crank emails, unsolicited business proposals, offers of loans, and would use it if I got an email from a stranger asking me to place bets on the Second Coming.

Net effects:

1. If Brian Schmidt really did get to talk to the famous Dr. Bill Gray (and reportedly had a pleasant chat) - nice...we wish all famous scientists were this gracious with strangers who call them with odd proposals. Brian should write this in his blog -- oh, he already did. Well, that's done then.

2. Connolley has to be left out - he can't remember for sure.

3. Annan seems to have not received a reply to an email he sent to a famous busy scientist. A not unexpected result. So, that should be done too. Not receiving an email reply from a celebrity may have been a disappointment to James, but it hardly calls for entering the affair in the subjects encyclopedia biography.

So, can we just delete this bet thing and be done with it? What do you all think?

KipHansen 19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No we can't. Whether or not Brian won't revert or not is irrelevant. In fact if Brian reverted it would be considered COI (imho).

Your "not famous" and "famous" items are pure WP:OR - and has nothing at all to do in this discussion - we have 2 reliable sources who say they have tried to get Gray to match his public statements about betting. These you cannot remove - neither per BLP nor any other means. What remains is: Does Brians phonecall get mentioned or not. This is the only thing that is under debate. Betting is not. As it very much follows WP:ATT and is so interesting an item that Science and others have commented on it.

Now as i've said before - i feel that Brians statement mellows and explains Grays refusal of a bet - therefore i believe that it merits inclusion. --Kim D. Petersen 19:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim - re: ""famous" items are pure WP:OR" -- if you honestly don't already know that Dr. Bill Gray "may be the world’s most famous hurricane expert. More than two decades ago, as professor of atmospheric science and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, he pioneered the science of hurricane forecasting" (or any of a hundred or more such cites) then you really have no business fooling around with his biography. WP:OR indeed!

There are not 2 WP:RSs - Connolley has backed out - doesn't really remember. Schmidt is not WP:RS.

There is only ONE fact asserted still in discussion. That is (from Annan) "I emailed him some time asking if he will back up this statement with a bet. William Connolley and Brian Schmidt at least have done the same. None of us (to my knowledge) has had the courtesy of a reply."

So the only thing that could possibly be said, and even that would not be properly sourced for it is not verifiable and is contained only in the blog of a known outspoken critic of Dr. Gray, is that Annan claims to have sent an email (not even an anecdotal version of the contents) and that he claims not to have received a reply. (As far as I can tell, Schmidt claims no unanswered emails, though it may be the case, and Wm. M. Connolley can't remember.)

If there is no reply, there can be no refusal. I'm afraid this is just a matter of simple fact - possibly Brian Schmidt, who is a lawyer, can explain this to you. Further, a million possibilities exist as to why Mr. Annan might have not received a reply, and none of them would constitute a refusal to bet.

Kim, there has been no betting here. There is Brian Schmidt, with whom no one has ever placed a bet, though he keeps trying. (Brian, by the way, makes a nice report about his talk with Dr. Gray, but as it is not verified it can not be used in the Biography of a Living Person, even if it were deemed significant. To verify it, one would need a statement from Dr. Gray about it.) Then, there is Annan, who I understand did place a bet, but not with Dr. Gray, whose biography we are discussing.

There is only one (or more) alleged unanswered emails.

Are you seriously suggesting that James Annan's unverifiable claim of an unanswered email deserves mention in Dr. Gray's biography?

If so, it would have to be along the following lines (though I admit in advance that such an entry would violate WP:BLS and WP:RS) -

James Annan claims to have emailed Dr. Gray in 2005 asking him to bet on future global warming. Annan says he did not receive a reply.

This is all that the facts -- but not WP -- allow.

KipHansen 23:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The trouble here isn't whether or not i know Bill Gray (i do) - What exactly do you know about WMC or Annann and their work? How exactly are you in a position to rate them? Now - is Gray more "famous" than Landsea, Trenberth, Mayfield, Anthes, Curry, Elsner, Holland, Knutson and so on? Is your "fame"-meter based upon public appearences/scientific papers/time in service? What does "world famous" btw. mean? Does it mean that i haven't got to go far here in Denmark to find someone who knows him? (hint: He's not famous here) - So in what circles is he famous? And for what? Unless you answer these in a serious way - i'll have to state that your arguing about "fame" is pure OR.

And i'll have to correct you here - WP:BLP doesn't say that you cannot have information from a "known outspoken critic" - just that it has to be sourced, and verifiable. Critique isn't banned from biography pages - look around Misplaced Pages - most known people have such. In fact - the more "famous" they are - the more relevant and acceptable critique becomes.

"If there is no reply, there can be no refusal. I'm afraid this is just a matter of simple fact" <- that one is your own POV - sorry. We are not here to speculate or put something into the text. Facts are: Gray has said he'd take "any bet" - and has ignored at least 2 bets (no - "Connolley has to be left out - he can't remember for sure." - we have a reliable source who says that Connolley did - is Connolley disputing Annann's assertion? If not - then we must assume that its correct).

Now i've stated my position on why i believe that Brian's bet should be included - and i personally have no trouble accepting that BS is a reliable source here - especially since BS has tuned in and confirmed his information. --Kim D. Petersen 00:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim - please -- Dr. Gray's fame, or lack or it, is not my invention as you well know. The only reason for mentioning it at all, other than the fact that we are discussing his encyclopedic biography, is that famous people often receive tons of unsolicited mail and email and often don't have time to reply to emails from people they don't know or whose names they don't recognize professionally.

Re blogs of outspoken critics: Quoting WP:BLP

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject.

The alleged "fact" that Annan received no reply to the email he claims to have sent (all unverifiable) can not be used to support the statement that when contacted "he refused to accept any bets...etc". It is simply not true on its face. There is no verification that there has been a contact, there is no verifiable refusal. There is only Annan's statement that he received no reply.

Kim - it wouldn't matter if the Mother Theresa joined in and said "Brian's a nice boy and wouldn't lie" - I don't think he did either. It's just that Wiki Policy does not allow the inclusion of his self-reported, unverifiable contact with Gray in Gray's biography whether it is favorable, unfavorable or NPOV. It simply can not be included.

Nor can Annan's report.

KipHansen 00:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(Nor can Annan's report.) He certainly can - read WP:RS and WP:ATT. Blogs are not entirely ruled out - there are specific exceptions. And Annann's blog is most certainly covered as such. As for Brian's - well we can discuss that one - but that has been the case all of the time. I still fail to see anything derogatory - i see possible critique - but that is most certainly allowed. --Kim D. Petersen 07:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Per a sidebar conversation with Kip, I've changed "refused to accept" to "declined to accept." I think the words are synonymous while Kip thinks there's a big difference. While I don't agree with him, I see no reason to be in a conflict over this. I assume this raises no COI since it's not about what's cited in the article.

And for what it's worth, James Annan's statement on his website that I had also emailed Gray offering him bets is an accurate statement.Brian A Schmidt 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Someone posted a plea to Misplaced Pages:Third opinion, so here I am. In my opinion, the issues of a bet offered, and whose blog can be cited as verification, are completely irrelevant to an encyclopedia article, and should be expunged. When I read the article, those sentences offer no value.

I would delete these sentences:

In his blog, James Annan claims that he, William Connolley, and Brian Schmidt have made e-mailed Gray requesting that he back up his assertions with a bet. According to Annan, Gray has failed to respond to any of these requests. Brian Schmidt reports that, when contacted by phone, Gray declined to accept any bets as to whether temperatures would drop on the grounds that such a long-term debt wasn't practical for a man in his seventies. He declined to make the bet even using a charitable foundation as a proxy.

and replace them with something like this:

To date, Gray has given no indication that he has agreed to a debate

That's my opinion. If you really want to reference the blogs as evidence a bet or debate was offered, append to my suggested sentence: despite claims that a debate or bet was offered . But don't go into detail about the back-and-forth in this article! -Amatulic 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere has anyone claimed that "debates" were offered. The offers were for bets. The scientists made bet offers pursuant to Gray's statement in verifiable Congressional testimony (which was widely reported) saying he would "take on" scientists over his contention that temperatures will fall.Brian A Schmidt 22:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Gray is quoted as saying "I'll take on any scientist in this field to talk about this". This suggests a debate. Amatulic's suggestion is that the discussion of offered bets and failures to accept such bets is unencyclopedic. I agree with this assessment although I can see room to argue about it.

If you feel that Amatulic's suggested resolution is unacceptable, we can take dispute resolution to the next step which would be either mediation or an Request for Comment. If you prefer mediation, then please respond to Kip Hansen's request for mediation.

It's already been stated earlier on this Talk Page that excessive emphasis has been given to Gray's stance on global warming. I agree with this also and I think we should leave the article as is without getting into the discussion about the "offered bets".

In brief, the arguments against discussing the "offered bets" in the article are (1) unencyclopedic topic (2) undue emphasis and (3) questionable reliability of sources.

--Richard 22:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Who cares whether scientists take bets? What are their arguments? That's what matters. And that suggests debate. If Gray "takes on" another scientist, with scientific argument, then that is worth writing about in an encyclopedia article. Bets are irrelevant. -Amatulic 23:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm - sorry. "Who cares whether scientists take bets?" - to answer please read: Nature BioEd OnlineRealClimate AGU presentation on probabalistic modeling of climate change Sciencepolicy - Pielke Jr.. So i beg to differ - it is in fact a very interesting aspect of science policy. --Kim D. Petersen 00:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And we have to mention that when Gray steps out of the scientific arena - and places statements in the public arena about his personal (not science based (ie. no papers have documented his opinion)) opinions on climate change (such as "Global warming is a hoax"). The he has transgressed from pure science into the realm of science policy. --Kim D. Petersen 00:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of "Stance on global warming" section

I have rewritten this section to make the text more precisely describe what the sources say.

I still think we have a problem using the blogs of Annan and Schmidt as reliable sources because the critical piece of Misplaced Pages's reliable source policy is that the source must have gone through some sort of formal publishing process (i.e. review by someone else prior to publication). AFAIK, both blogs fail this test. However, given Kim's refusal to concede this point, it will take further steps in the dispute resolution process before we can resolve this issue.

In the meantime, I have reworded the article so that the article text matches what is said in the blogs.

I have also switched to the </ref> citation style.

--Richard 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See my Third opinion above, which was solicited earlier. -Amatulic 17:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to Richard and Amatulic for their input and efforts to help cool off and work through this dispute.

I am satisfied with the current version.

KipHansen 00:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

LA Times quote cite

Note on above - I had to use for this. This leads to a "free preview" summary page of the original archived LA Times article, and does not give the full text. One must PAY to view the full text. The preview does include the quote used.

Any objections to this cite?

KipHansen 00:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have access to the article? If not - then put the citation needed tag back. Its the specific quote that has to be sourced. Alternatively find another source to quote. I've read that article at some time in the past (the one where the quote is from) - but i'm not sure that its the article that you link to... --Kim D. Petersen 03:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim - the specific quote is in the portion of the article one is allowed to view with the above link (open it in a new tab to see), without paying. My concern is that without universal access to the full article, the quote could be viewed as "out of context". It seems to be sort of like quoting an abstract rather than the actual conclusion section of a scientific study paper.

Yep you are right - i blame my eyes :-) - somehow despite looking, i missed it. Guess i'm getting old. --Kim D. Petersen 17:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, quoting from a hard-copy book, perfectly normal thing to do, requires the interested party to buy the book or go to a library in order to verify.

Its perfectly allright to reference off-line content - as long as you are able to certify (which you do by writing it) that its correct. Of course the off-line content has to uphold the usual guidelines for WP:RS. That was the reason i asked if you had access to the article (i missed the quote) - if you had - then everything is A-Ok. --Kim D. Petersen 17:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be enough to give what we have here - the date of the article, the link to access, which exposes to the interested party the portion of the full article that contains the quote used. This verifies that the quote is valid, not misquoted, and is contained in the article cited. If the interested party wishes to view the entire article, they can go a library that has micro-filmed back issues of the LA Times, to their university that has institutional access to the LA Times Online archives, or simply pay the fee to view the entire article.

Anyone else with a comment?

Alternately, we could replace that quote with this one -

Dr. Bill Gray "may be the world’s most famous hurricane expert. More than two decades ago, as professor of atmospheric science and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, he pioneered the science of hurricane forecasting" </blockquote]

Which has a reliable, accessible, cite.

Again, comments?

KipHansen 15:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The "may be" quote isn't good - it implies of the journalists musings instead of real researched content. The original one is quite allright. --Kim D. Petersen 17:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal exchange

I believe a personal exchange documented on someone's blog is not sufficiently reliable for a BLP. William Connelly reverted my removal of this text. I'm not reverting back immediately, but I think it's problematic. Is there any other source confirming the viewpoints expressed in that blog? We should try to locate a more reliable source, or I think it should be removed. ATren 14:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Investigating further, it turns out that RealClimate is also a blog. I've removed both blog-sourced claims until better sources can be identified. ATren 15:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. RealClimate is a blog. The material being referenced is self published and not peer reviewed. I quote from WP:BLP:

"Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links (see above).

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person that is controversial, or derogatory, or impossible to verify otherwise, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below)."

If this criticism is valid there should be other references available. Also, blogs do not write critiques, people do. The article being referenced is anonymous. Please cite the authorities who wrote the article.

--GoRight 18:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note WP:SPS: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

RealClimate most certainly qualifies. Also, the critique is about the person's work, not the person. Gmb92 05:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And the sentence following that in WP:SPS states: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources." I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but clearly there is a disconnect here, and either the policy or the practice needs to change. ATren 05:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, the critique is about Gray's work, not Gray. Gmb92 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: BLP = Biography of Living Persons of which this article is one. It makes no distinction about whether the content is regarding the person or their work and your point is splitting hairs at best.

Actually, in an article that is a biography of a living person why should there be criticism of their work at all, unless of course it is self criticism? But that is a separate point. --GoRight 21:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell William Gray has not contributed significantly to the body of knowledge known as "Global Warming." I don't think any of his statements are peer reviewed and it appears most of them are used by others for advancing political viewpoints and that the criticism of those statements are also part of a political response. Therefore, I don't think blogs are appropriate sources. There is plenty of coverage in mainstream sources of his statements and the response of his critics. We should stay away from the blogs. --DHeyward 05:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I find direct views from qualified experts at least as reliable as views from a journalist, mainstream or not. WP:SPS clearly allows for this self-published exception. What qualifies RC as a source is that their contributors have published relevant studies in peer-reviewed journals, which is more than I can say about Gray. Gmb92 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I found DH's logic odd: WG hasn't contrib to GW; his stuff isn't PR and is used politically; *Therefore* blogs aren't appropriate. The *Therefore* makes no sense, quite the opposite: Gray is working in the blogosphere, *therefore* blogs *are* appropriate within thie article. But note that the only reason anyone takes WG seriously (to the extent anyone does) is because of the argument-from-authority William M. Connolley 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

First, BLP clearly states that an author's own unpublished words are acceptable regarding himself. Second, well-sourced criticism has been found and added to the article. Why the insistence on adding your own unpublished criticism? ATren 17:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for cryptic edit comment. The following paragraph clearly documents peer criticism - no, not so. There is no crit of his wurblings on GW William M. Connolley 18:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Then we should include some criticism from the cited source (a Denver newspaper), not from a blog. ATren 18:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The "therefore" is for the WP:SPS exception for blogs. Since the field of relevance here is politics, not science, RC shouldn't be given an exception. The RC article is not science. It is specifically calling out a single person. I know of no scientifically reputable article that attacks the author instead of their views. "Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming" title shows that this is commentary about a person. It is commentary, not science. IT was not titled "Thermohaline Circulation and Global Warming" or "Evaporation and Global Warming" which might have been usable scientific articles. Even the harshest rebuttals in scientific journals don't call out the previous authors. Science is about hypothesis, experiment and refinement, not ad hominem. William Gray has been roundly criticized for his ad hominem arguments and the RC source is not any better than that. It should not be inlcuded simply because it is not science just as we wouldn't cite William Gray's blog in the Global Warming article. --DHeyward 19:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I know what you mean, but you're wrong. This is about science. I don't know whether you've failed to read the RC piece, or are incapable of reading it, but you've certainly failed to understand it. Is is not an attack on the person, but on the persons failed science. The RC article is about Grays science, or rather on the flaws in it, not about Gray. And Gray doesn't have a blog William M. Connolley 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then put you criticism in a place appropriate for discussing the man's work rather than the man himself which this page is unquestionably about. --GoRight 21:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki doesn't have a page for stuff as nonsensical as Gray writes; but arguing that Grays work doesn't belong on Grays page is bizarre William M. Connolley 22:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And you wonder why I think your neutrality is lacking at times?  :) But just for the record, it was Gmb92 above that was making the distinction. Gray's work certainly belongs on Gray's page, I just question whether your opinions belong here.  :) --GoRight 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the "therefore" is a non sequitur, but I think the point is rather robust in the policy: regardless of the authenticity or credibility of a self-published author, it should not and cannot be used as a criticism for a biography of a living person. Yes, people play into his arguments because of fallacious appeals to his (improper) authority, but that's what is when we listen to other scientists--just appeals to authority, but in these contexts, the authority is appropriate to consider. Regardless of his authority on subject, however, if there is something worthwhile to say about Dr. Gray, then chances are it has been published in sources appropriate to reference. This is the same thing WP:RS will tell you. If appropriate sources have not made the claims, Misplaced Pages is in no place to make them either. ~ UBeR 22:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

About Dr Gray, perhaps. About his "science", RC is a perfectly reasonable source William M. Connolley 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to get into a revert war here, William. You've said the criticism charge needed elaboration, and I've found some text from that newspaper source which does address Gray's GW research. Please consider this as a better alternative for criticism of his GW stance, than material sourced to a blog. ATren 18:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your version of "not getting into a revert war" appears to be failing to mark your reverts as such. Please do, and if you're going to claim the moral high ground do please stay there or remove your false claims William M. Connolley 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My point (obviously not conveyed clearly) was that this was not a simple revert, but an effort to convey the criticism using an independent, third party source. If you misunderstood my words, I apologize. ATren 00:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You should mark non-simple reverts as reverts, too. I understood your words at clearly enough, they simply failed to describe your edit William M. Connolley 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And I've already apologized twice for that edit comment, which I really believed at the time conveyed the fact that this was a revert. I can't change it, because edit comments can't be edited, so what else can I do at this point to rectify the situation? Can admins change edit comments? ATren 15:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No you haven't, because your apology was conditional on my misunderstanding, which I hadn't William M. Connolley 15:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I've tried multiple times now to apologize, and I'm obviously not succeeding. So why don't you craft the words of a more appropriate apology, post it here or on my talk page, and I will sign it, just so there is no more confusion. OK? ATren 15:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The moment has passed; don't worry about it. But conditional apologies are irritating, I've heard far too many from politicians. My policy is to mark all reverts with (rv) if there is any doubt. Unless I forget, of course William M. Connolley 15:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The RC source probably belongs. It's possibly comparable to a journalistic source, but I wish we had something better. However, the "Aged skeptics" post is totally inappropriate in a BLP. For whatever credence we give SPS experts in their field, we only do so in the areas they have expertise—certainly not in derisive speculation. RC's expertise is climatology, and they make substantive criticisms of the man's ideas. "Aged skeptics" goes considerably beyond this competence into what we would call personal attacks on wikipedia: derisive inferences from Gray's purported behavior. It may be that Gray is wrong about negative feedback, but we should not cite as authority a blog that says "Especially (in the case of Gray) when your time is occupied being interviewed and screaming at people," and goes on to make conclusory statements about Gray's supposed ignorance and non-theories. Please don't re-add this blog. Cool Hand Luke 22:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's very difficult to make these kinds of judgements, when the BLP policy itself seems to be morphing as we speak - there are active debates on WP:BLP and WP:V regarding BLP sourcing. When I originally raised the BLP issue here, it seemed clear that any blog sources in BLP articles were classified as "remove on sight", but this stance seems to be softening to allow the use of unpublished works in certain scenarios. Personally, I think that's a bad idea, since it creates potential heated debates on every BLP article.

In this case, a little searching produced much better sourcing for the criticism. The critical quotes DHeyward and I added were from a colleague and (former?) friend of Gray's, and it was published in a newspaper article that was largely favorable to Gray. That criticism has a lot more credibility and reliability than unpublished criticism from his political opponents.

IMO, BLP sourcing should be treated like non-free images, which are deleted on sight even if they make the article less good in the short term. This will encourage editors to work harder to find published sources, which should be out there if the subject is sufficiently notable. ATren 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Where do these debates take place? --GoRight 02:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A tend to agree with Cool Hand on both the Dessler and RC piece. Dessler is a qualified expert but his short blog entry is more of a critique about the person and some opinions about his knowledge of science with no details. RC's entry is a more detailed critique of Gray's work, not Gray. More stringent requirements associated with BLP I believe are intended to prevent libel. Obviously we should be on the cautious side of that when sourcing but clearly this goes to the extreme, removing reasoned and qualified critique from the article which BLP allows for. The result from the recent edit to this section is the replacement of a fairly detailed qualified scientific critique on Gray's work with a link to an article containing a few critical statements by a climate scientist. Not that this is a bad source, but removing RC's critique makes no sense since it's a valid source in this instance and a good contribution to this article. Gmb92 04:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Dessler quote is even more problematic. It's about equal to a forum post, as it's simply a reply in a comment box to someone else's post. Such informal, self-published, and unverifiable venues should never be used to criticize someone in a biography of a living person, regardless of its author. ~ UBeR 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Dessler quote, but I think we should all consider DHeyward's suggestion below, to vastly trim the GW-related sections. That would make much of this discussion moot. ATren 14:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the RealClimate reference, is it just me or does anyone else object to the fact that the article in question is anonymous? We have no idea who actually wrote the piece in question. I can accept the credentials of the primary contributors as individuals but the credentials of some anonymous author? If they want to be taken seriously they should at least sign their names to the piece. --GoRight 06:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Group RC posts are the work of all. Of course William M. Connolley 14:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

World government charge

Some valid references please. --GoRight 02:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's coming from the Washington Post article. I can't really tell if he's being sarcastic or not. ~ UBeR 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant text from the WaPo piece is:

"Gray has his own conspiracy theory. He has made a list of 15 reasons for the global warming hysteria. The list includes the need to come up with an enemy after the end of the Cold War, and the desire among scientists, government leaders and environmentalists to find a political cause that would enable them to 'organize, propagandize, force conformity and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world!'"

Is that quote on the end supposed to be a quote from Gray? If so the maybe there is a case here, but I am not clear on whether that is meant as an actual quote from Gray. If not I could care less what the author's personal opinion is of Gray. The fair thing to do in the latter case is either remove the charge or, if people insist, make it clear that this is one person's interpretation of Gray's position and not necessarily his actual position.

--GoRight 04:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume those are Dr. Gray's words. ~ UBeR 05:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Undue Weight

Global warming is only a very small and recent part of his life. For a biography, so much focus both on his GW views and criticism is undue weight. I propose two or three sentences each for his stance and criticism and merging the two sections. This article needs a lot more on his life as a scientist and expert on tropical cyclones. --DHeyward 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

--DHeyward 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the GW portion is out proportion of what a properly weighted biography would include. Definitely should expand on his role as a hurricane forecaster and his achievements in the field. ~ UBeR 04:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is a concern, I think instead of removing material, we should focus on providing more material for the other areas. Perhaps the global warming piece could be another article, although the article's size doesn't warrant that.Gmb92 04:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think DHeyward is dead on here. There are concerns from both sides of this debate about the reliability of sourcing with respect to much of the GW-related material. To me this indicates that his GW work is probably not notable enough for such a long section, and it should be pruned way down. This would resolve the issue of unreliable criticism as well: if there are no GW claims from Gray, there is no need to refute them in detail. DHeyward's text above can be sourced directly to the Denver newspaper article. If nobody objects, I'm going to make this change later today. ATren 14:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In terms of scientific career, GW is a negligible part of Grays work - well, zero in fact, since as far as can be told he has never published on it or done any research. But in terms of public note, it is probably 75% or more of him. Very few people had heard of him before he ventured into GW. So wimping out of the problem by stripping it down is a poor solution William M. Connolley 14:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not "wimping out". Gray has not published on GW, so his views on the matter are not reliable, just like the unpublished criticisms are not reliable. What is reliable is that he's gained some notoriety on GW, and that others have criticised him for it. That's all that needs to be said. ATren 15:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree on the undue weight. Gray was well-known in the U.S. popular press for his seasonal hurricane forecasts long before the GW stuff blew up. His forecasts have made the front section of the papers every year for a decade or so. Even now I think he probably is more associated with hurricane forecasting, at least in the U.S. You almost never get hurricanes in Europe, so perhaps his hurricane forecasts didn't make the nightly news. Raymond Arritt 16:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, RA, I stand corrected on that. In Europe, he was completely unknown before GW. Gray has not published on GW, so his views on the matter are not reliable - in a scientific sense, I agree - his views are thoroughly unreliable. But they are his views, and there a good sources attributing them to him, so there is no excuse for not reporting them, and no use claiming they are of no interest William M. Connolley 16:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, absolutely they need to be reported; but right now the global warming business is 3/4 of the article, which is out of proportion. Maybe it could be trimmed back a bit but more to the point, we need more material on his hurricane research and forecasts. Maybe I'll add some. Raymond Arritt 17:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be excellent. I agree that the GW could be trimmed, though: just not right down to the bone. We need to know what he says, rather than just that he disagrees, and we should know what people have responded with William M. Connolley 17:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I proposed replacing it with:

Comment? --DHeyward 17:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you want, to repeat everything above? Yes I saw it. Yes it cuts too much out. I've already said that. If you want some more, then it get things in the wrong order: the main crit is that his theories are junk; the personal stuff is secondary William M. Connolley 18:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people