Talk:Fred Singer

Polemic versus documentary

"Channel 4 said that The Great Global Warming Swindle was clearly identified as an authored polemic of the kind that is characteristic of some of Channel 4’s output. As a public service broadcaster Channel 4 has a statutory obligation to commission distinctive programmes which appeal to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society.

"The channel said that the programme sought to present the viewpoint of the minority of scientists who do not believe that global warming is caused by the anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide. The programme sought to examine the debate over the cause of global warming, outline possible alternative causes and give a voice to the minority who question the prevailing orthodoxy and its possible motivations." [1]

That is to say, Channel 4 who commissioned the programme called it a polemic. Of course a polemic is a kind of documentary, but the word "polemic" is to be preferred because it is more accurate. --TS 00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am changing the wording from "polemic film" to "polemic documentary" which is the correct term for this genre of documentary. A polemic documentary is any documentary that takes a position on any particular issue (Gore's documentary would also be classified as a polemic documentary because it argue from a specific point of view). Given that is the technically correct form of the term, I'm making a very modest change to reflect the actual genre. If anyone has questions, just google "polemic documentary" or "polemic documentary" "genre OR style" to see the wide variety of documentaries represented under under this category. The word polemic is not used colloquially in this sense, but rather formally and technically and, hence, as TS puts it, is more accurate. --John G. Miles (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Paper" or "magazine article"

Given the connotations of the term "paper" and the non-scholarly status of Cosmos, wouldn't it be better to refer to the document supposedly co-authored with Roger Revelle as a "magazine article" here? Bkalafut (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

Its a blog William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably, FG seems to be reverting-without-talking. The source you're using is a blog. You can't do that. Asserting that it references a real source is meaningless, because we can't trust the information in the blog. That is the point. If we could trust what was in it, it wouldn't need a ref elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The original source links directly to the Newsweek retraction. There is no verifiability issue here. FellGleaming (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

But of course there is the its-a-blog issue. Which you've ack'd in the article, even if you don't have the honesty to do so here, by doing what you should have done in the first place: using newsweek direct as a source. The question now arises as to whether you've paraphrased it accurately William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC, you've inserted countless references to blog entries. You're well aware that "it's a blog" is not a black and white issue. Or are you saying its valid to remove every reference to the RealClimate blog throughout all WP? FellGleaming (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been done to death. Someone with more patience than I can explain it to you if you can't be bothered to look it up for yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To FG, if the blog links directly to the Newsweek article then wouldn't it be logical to reference the Newsweek article itself instead of using a blog as an intermediary? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's more logical to use the original source (which is not a blog, btw) because it redacts out all but the relevant section (while still linking to the original source), making verification of the claim easier. However, I have since linked to the original NW retraction FellGleaming (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There was no mention of an "apology" in Samuelson's column, so I fixed the wording. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your fix is inaccurate. Please see below. FellGleaming (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Newsweek Source

SBH, you are misrepresenting the source. Allow me to quote the relevant section:

" NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" is a peripheral and highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability. (The company says it knew nothing of the global-warming grant, which involved issues of climate modeling. And its 2006 contribution to the think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was small: $240,000 out of a $28 million budget. ”

Samuelson is refuting the entire concept of an industry-funded "denial machine", a point of view he expounds upon not only in this story, but in interviews after the fact. Please do the right thing and revert your edit. FellGleaming (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to fix it. Please try to use neutral wording that is close to the source, e.g., "Samuelson stated that the story's accusations of ExxonMobil sponsoring a think tank..." etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Please let me know if you find the new version acceptable. FellGleaming (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Its written by a columnist in his bi-weekly column, which (as such columns do) stating his opinion. Presenting it as if it is Newsweek that is retracting, refuting or apologizing is fundamentally misleading. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying "Newsweek retracted the story" is misleading. Saying "Samuelson called the story..." is not. Also, Samuelson is a contributing editor, not a random columnist. FellGleaming (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Samuelson's bio at Newsweek lists no other responsibility besides writing biweekly columns. It would be misleading to indicate that Samuelson's opinion column reflected a change of mind at Newsweek.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine title - but please look up what a contributing editor actually is. As Brian says: Samuelson writes a bi-weekly column for Newsweek. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Samuelson's bio at Newsweek lists him as contributing editor:

• http://topics.newsweek.com/newsweek/robert-j.-samuelson.htm

Removing this information simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is against WP policy. The new form of the text is longer, less clear, and seems tailor-made simply to hide that fact. Please do the right thing and self-revert this one. FellGleaming (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A "contributing editor" is nothing but a fancy name for a freelance writer who commonly writes articles for a magazine. It has no real connection to being an editor of a paper/journal/magazine. In this case the more correct (and less misleading description, as evidenced by your own confusion) is columnist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, we have the magazine itself calling him an contributing editor, and no source whatsoever calling him a "columnist". Yet you want to remove a well-sourced description and replace it with an unsourced title that is designed simply to minimize his position? His official title is contributing editor. I realize you may not like the sound of that, but no one here is confused by it. Further, Samuelson's position with Newsweek is certainly not "freelance". You may want to look up the definition of that term if you're confused by it. FellGleaming (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The same reference that you are using to call him contributing editor, states that he is writing a bi-weekly colum - which is the only thing that he apparently does for Newsweek. So its quite accurate and well-referenced to call him a columnist. Sorry - but do you have any reference for him not being freelance? Since in "contributing editor" in fact implies that he is? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not accurate. A source saying that a person is a contributing editor, who writes a column, is not a source that says a person is a columnist. Two entirely different concepts. Anyone can write a column. That does not make them a "freelance columnist". FellGleaming (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose one solution is to insert the wiki definition of "contributing editor" into this section of the article to help clarify that his opinion's aren't Newsweek's. A better solution is to delete the reference to "contributing editor" or "biweekly columnist" and just say that "Newsweek later carried a rebuttal opinion by Robert Samuelson". Brian A Schmidt (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The very best solution is to delete the entire reference to Newsweek. It might be marginally notable on an article on SEPP, but in a bio on Singer himself, it not only falls below the bar for notability, but seems a simple muckraking smear attempt, and the text length, compared to his entire career, has severe problems with undue weight as well. FellGleaming (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that is certainly not the best solution. We can't just remove critique because a single individual feels that it is over the top. And Samuelson is a single individual writing an opinion - whereas the Newsweek article is a journalistic piece. NPOV is not to present Samuelsons personal opinion as equally valid/with weight as a front-page journalistic article. As for being about SEPP - nope - that is WP:OR - and besides that since his wife left SEPP, SEPP == Singer. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest edits

I've reverted the latest changes - the reason for this is:

• This breaks with WP:WEIGHT and WP:V. Samuelson's opinion column carries significantly smaller weight than a frontpage journalistic article with the full editorial review of Newsweek. The text about an Exxon campaign being discredited is not in the reference - the only thing Samuelson calls discredited is a specific instance with the AEI (ie. not Singer).
• This removes contnt that is supported by a reliable secondary source. With no good rationale - if we are going to "trim it" then we should cut down or consolidate text from various references - not remove the refs.
• This because it is wrong. It wasn't astronomical observations - but erroneous interpretation of these. Do please note that it wasn't Singers erroneus interpretation. To my view it is far better to state that Singer was basing this on wrong data, than to say that he misinterpreted astronomical observations.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek piece

I am very sympathetic to the view that the Newsweek piece is not sufficiently about Singer. It could possibly be in the Marshal Insititute article. Also the $10k from Exxon Mobil does not meet my understanding of BLP. I therefore propose deleting these two paragraphs. --BozMo talk 11:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)