Talk:John Holdren/Archive 1

removal of "Track record of predictions" section
I removed the "Track record of predictions" section because it is pure POV pushing and is given undue weight in the article. The quotes are cherry-picked and the examples are extremely selective. It borders on slander libel and doesn't belong. 216.164.40.152 (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done a partial restore of this section. The original was clearly quite POV, but I have been steadily trimming it and finding proper references.  The sections which have been restored strike me as quite relevant, in particular the quotes from his work with Ehrlich.  These are all well sourced to his own writings and so can hardly be described as slander. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The section begins with the sentence, "Holdren has made many environmental and political predictions throughout his career." However, *all* the examples that follow are where Holdren seems to have gotten it wrong. What about the presumably enormous number of predictions he's made that have been right? Until someone unearths those, this section is giving undue weight to these claims. Citations don't change this.

And, yes, the section does seem libelous. Lies of omission are still lies. By leaving out all the predictions Holdren has made that turned out to be correct, you portray him as much more foolish than he is.

I'll also venture to say that the section is original research and doesn't belong. The cites you left in were indeed from Holdren's own papers, but who has reported on them or this issue? The blog that was originally cited (that you left off in your restore) doesn't qualify as a reliable source. 216.164.40.152 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't agree, and so will revert. Please feel free to make specific changes you can justify.  For what it's worth I think the current second paragraph is considerably weaker than the first, and that if you remove the second paragraph then the argument for a section break is weak; the remaining text should simply be moved into the main text, addressing your undue weight claim.


 * You speak of the "presumably enormous number of predictions he's made that have been right"; I really have no idea whether or not such things exist. If you can find and document some then do feel free to add them, as they would certainly improve balance.  I'm not seeking to portray Holdren in any particular way: recall that I didn't add any of this material, I have simply been checking that the material can in fact be tracked back to reliable sources, or labelling it with fact tags where it cannot.


 * Finally, I think you misunderstand the meaning of original research. Note that "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."  Cites from Holdren's own papers are just fine. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak libel is still libel, and "balance" is a shortcut to accuracy that is being misapplied here. OR includes synthesis of primary sources.

The material for the section came (almost) point-by-point from an unreliable source, a partisan blog. (That's two strikes: "partisan" and "blog".)  Then the material was stripped down to a few quotes (with references to Holdren's original works), and the reference to the original source deleted.

Holdren is a well-respected, professional scientist. He wouldn't have gotten this reputation if he couldn't make good science. He is the former president and a former board member of AAAS, a professor at Harvard, director of Woods Hole, and a "genuine expert". He is a "distinguished researcher" and a "serious scholar".

I mention all this because --- as currently written --- the section would lead an uninformed reader to believe that Holdren is terrible at making predictions. That conclusion is far off base. Two of the references are to a very early point in his career (the first when he was 26). The other is to a possible 4 meter rise in sea levels. That conclusion isn't far off base. The section portends to be a "Track record of predictions" when it is woefully incomplete. Undue weight is given to cases where Holdren looks silly.

WP:BLP says that "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately". I'd say this material is poorly sourced and negative. BLP goes on to say, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons". WP:OR says that OR includes "... any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". The synthesis of selected predictions into a "track record" seems like OR to me.

Short of total removal, the only sort of thing I'd accept here would be a single sentence on the topic. This sentence from the NYTimes or something like it would do: "Dr. Holdren has occasionally been drubbed by conservatives as overstating environmental perils." If you persist in adding back more, I'm going to solicit more opinions on the BLP notice board. 216.164.40.152 (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think that the information is one sided, then add references that support the other side, but please don't delete properly referenced material. Simple deletion of material you "don't like" is POV pushing. So is your "definition" of OR. Q Science (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)