http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...n-who-am-i.aspx
Lawrence Solomon, in his National Post column, talks about the recent battle to describe him as an environmentalist. I was recently involved in that battle (check the article's talk page). More than that, however, he makes a good point about how many articles, especially BLPs, in Wikipedia are collages of bits and pieces from Google searches.
Full Version: Lawrence Solomon's BLP
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 14th February 2010, 7:30am) 
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...n-who-am-i.aspx
Lawrence Solomon, in his National Post column, talks about the recent battle to describe him as an environmentalist. I was recently involved in that battle (check the article's talk page). More than that, however, he makes a good point about how many articles, especially BLPs, in Wikipedia are collages of bits and pieces from Google searches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=cur&oldid=prev
How long till I get reverted on the grounds of WP:ASR or WP:AUTO or somesuch false reasoning?
Solomon disses Fat Raul654. That's funny. 
Personally, I don't have a problem with someone who disagrees with the "orthodoxy" on global warming/climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise) being described as an "environmentalist," if he really has the bona fides for it. But I'd really like to see Solomon recant some of the stuff he wrote about Connolley's article counts and such - those numbers were dead wrong, deliberately (I suspect) deceptive, and frankly, embarrassing.
Until he does that, I'm afraid almost anything he says is potentially suspect, even if he does claim to have reliable sources to back it up.
Until he does that, I'm afraid almost anything he says is potentially suspect, even if he does claim to have reliable sources to back it up.
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 14th February 2010, 8:07pm)
Personally, I don't have a problem with someone who disagrees with the "orthodoxy" on global warming/climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise) being described as an "environmentalist," if he really has the bona fides for it. But I'd really like to see Solomon recant some of the stuff he wrote about Connolley's article counts and such - those numbers were dead wrong, deliberately (I suspect) deceptive, and frankly, embarrassing.
Until he does that, I'm afraid almost anything he says is potentially suspect, even if he does claim to have reliable sources to back it up.
Yes, I don't know where he got those numbers. Since I opened a dialogue with him by email, perhaps I should ask him about it.
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 14th February 2010, 3:22pm)
Yes, I don't know where he got those numbers. Since I opened a dialogue with him by email, perhaps I should ask him about it.
By all means, and you might want to look at this previous discussion where I got even more huffy about it than I am in this one!
I started writing a WR blog post about it akshully, but soon thought the better of it after the ire had subsided. Maybe if he repeats those numbers in future I'll post it, just in case someone notices...
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 15th February 2010, 1:44am)
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 14th February 2010, 3:22pm)
Yes, I don't know where he got those numbers. Since I opened a dialogue with him by email, perhaps I should ask him about it.
By all means, and you might want to look at this previous discussion where I got even more huffy about it than I am in this one!
I started writing a WR blog post about it akshully, but soon thought the better of it after the ire had subsided. Maybe if he repeats those numbers in future I'll post it, just in case someone notices...
I emailed him and included a link to the past discussion in WR about it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.