Talk:Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen

Link to generic comments
I removed the link to Stephen Schnider's generic remarks, mainly because his site's down, and even cached versions of the page are not coming up. So it basically doesn't exist any more (and I'm not sure if it was appropriate to link to in the first place, but if I can't find it, then it doesn't matter anyway...) All I could find was this: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=61104

So. Sln3412 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Retired
Looks like she's retired? Does anyone have more up to date information? – Apis (talk ) 18:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Demoted to res assoc? Indeed, it would be nice to know more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed blog-sourced comment
I removed this:
 * Her journal once published a paper that claimed that the sun is made of iron .Cited to Shanta Barley, "Real Climate faces libel suit", The Guardian, 25 February 2011 --

--which claim is sourced to "Big City Lib's" blog, and unconvincing. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It needs to be reworded, but the source in use (The Guardian) is not a blog. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Guardian's source is a blog, by a notorious partisan. The accusation is clearly false, and absurd. We don't put in UE stuff like this -- it's just political  posturing,  and has no place in a biography. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Guardian can use whatever sources it likes. It remains a reliable source itself (again, the Guardian piece is not itself a blog).  Why are you so sure the accusation is false?  Note the wording of the sentence: "Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron."  It does not say, Schmidt points to an E&E paper that he asserts claimed that the Sun is made of iron.  So the Guardian is in no doubt about the truth of the claim.  A Wikipedia editor's assertion to the contrary is thus WP:OR, if not mere speculation.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced material
The material supported by the Guardian article makes explicit reference to Boehmer-Christiansen's direct involvement as editor in publishing the paper in question. There is no problem re WP:TOPIC here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It mentions her, yes but the article is not discussing her but that of the journal E&E. Is this page discussing what appears in E&E? Debates over what did or did not appear in journal E&E should be on that page.--JournalScholar (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not merely mention her -- it discusses her direct involvement in the decision to publish that paper (against the recommendations of the reviewer, even). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No such peer-reviewed paper was published. It was only published as a viewpoint - an opinion piece, http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2011/02/peer-review-at-e.html. The wording of the Guardian article is very poor and is not accurately reflecting what the paper was about which, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109075137.htm and peer-reviewed papers have been published on this, http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/. Thus it is not true that she published a peer-reviewed paper against the recommendations of a reviewer. Without proper context people will come to a misleading conclusion about this as you have. This is a discussion that belongs in the journal page.--JournalScholar (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to want to take the view that we should disregard what high-quality reliable sources say about this matter and rely on your own personal knowledge here. This is surprising, coming from someone who started editing Wikipedia such a long time ago.  Add that to the distraction about "peer-reviewed paper" -- that's not in the text that you have been repeatedly deleting here, so it's a red herring to make that a point of discussion here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Guardian said no such thing. You added a line completely out of context and that is 100% verified by reading the source. "Real Climate" said nothing, Gavin Schmidt did and it was not your incorrect line. Did you not read the source? Your "high-quality" reliable source linked to a blog, which I actually read and linked to above. Everything I stated was confirmed by the blog your "high quality" source got it's information from. Your argument that The Guardian, "discusses her direct involvement in the decision to publish that paper (against the recommendations of the reviewer" is the correct context of the line now not your original distortion. You apparently do not understand the peer-review process if you do not understand the purpose of reviewers. Reviewers are not involved and not considered in publishing viewpoint - opinion articles in most journals only the editors. Everything I have stated is 100% verifiable.--JournalScholar (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your post is virtually word salad. Here's what the Guardian says: 'As an example, Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. "The editor sent it out for review, where it got trashed (as it should have been), and [Boehmer-Christiansen] published it anyway," he says.'  This source thus supports the text that you have been deleting: 'Real Climate, a prominent blog run by climate scientists, asserted in 2011 that her journal once published a paper that claimed that the sun is made of iron.'  (You complained about attribution, but Real Climate's membership includes Gavin Schmidt.)  The entire thing is absurd -- including the notion that an assertion that the sun is made of iron could be a "viewpoint-opinion'.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh no, it does not say "Real Climate" said anything - that is a complete distortion of the source. You just quoted it, it explicitly says "Schmidt". The context of, "an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron" is a Guardian editorialization and not a quote from Schmidt. This is also discussing E&E NOT Boehmer-Christiansen. Your text is completely inaccurate and I will submit that argument for review anywhere. My assertion is absurd? Did you not read the blog source The Guardian linked to? Are you even reading anything you cite before you do so? The Guardian cites, http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2011/02/peer-review-at-e.html, "Hence his paper could not be published as peer reviewed, but as a viewpoint. "- Sonja.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am also very concerned that you do not understand the context of "the sun is made of iron". Dr. Manuel is not claiming the Sun is "solid iron" which is a wildly incorrect distortion of his theory. His theory proposes that hydrogen fusion creates some of the sun's heat, as hydrogen and can be found on the sun's surface. But most of the heat comes from the core of an exploded supernova that continues to generate energy within the iron-rich interior of the sun, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iron-02a.html. This theory has been published in the peer-reviewed literature, http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/. The Guardian editorialization is incredibly misleading in this context.--JournalScholar (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears you do not understand the meaning of the term "editorialization". And I'm amazed that you persist in saying that the Guardian does not connect Boehmer-Christiansen to this incident: the source is unequivocal on what happened here.  If you think the source was wrong, you'll need to take it up with the source.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Provide me with the quote of Gavin making any such claim.--JournalScholar (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please become acquainted with WP:V. The Guardian is a wholly appropriate source for this content.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing if the Guardian is an appropriate source. Again, please quote where Gavin made the claim you are subscribing to him.--JournalScholar (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a question you might want to pose to the person who write the Guardian article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need to ask them as I can see where the " " are on the page and so can you. I just added the paper's title.--JournalScholar (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

... while deleting the content that you dislike, in utter disregard of WP:V. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've violated nothing, Gavin is not quoted on the page stating any such thing and I will submit that for administrative review. I have asked repeatedly for you to provide me with his quote of this claim and you have not done so.--JournalScholar (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If your claim is so verifiable then you should be able to provide me with the quote. My argument is 100% verifiable using The Guardian source as - paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron - does not appear is quotes. The actual title of the paper is a primary source not some blog source like The Guardian used.--JournalScholar (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing needs to appear in quotes. Show me a Wikipedia policy that indicates such a requirement; you can't, because there isn't one.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It violates WP:V as Schmidt cannot be verified as asserting any such thing.--JournalScholar (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Guardian article verifies it. You clearly do not understand WP:V.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Using the Guardian article it cannot be verified if Schmidt characterized the paper in question as - a paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. This is still editorializing the contents of the paper and violates NPOV regardless. The actual title of the paper is a NPOV.--JournalScholar (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity, please provide a clear explanation of how the specific article in the Guardian meets the 3 criteria for a Reliable Source. You cannot assert that an article is a reliable source based on its publisher alone. You must have a reliable publisher, a reliable author, and finally, a reliable article. If JournalScholar has a primary source that conflicts directly with your secondary source then it needs futher consideration and justification before it can be asserted that it is a reliable secondary source, per Wikipedia's base requirements for inclusion. -- Avanu (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the conflict? The blog to which the Guardian links says: "Manuel is that guy that thinks the Sun is like a giant, really hot ball-bearing."  JournalScholar wants to propagate the notion that Schmidt didn't say this, but he (JournalScholar) is confused on a number of issues and this is clearly one of them.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, you have said that Guardian article verifies some statement by this guy Schmidt. Based on the 3 criteria, how does the article meet our reliable source requirements, and are there other sources out there which conflict with it? -- Avanu (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that there are sources that conflict with it. If you are, please do tell us -- I have no desire to get it wrong here.  The Guardian is not a source that would normally give rise to concerns about RS, and if there are concerns in that regard then of course they can be discussed -- but there should be a sensible basis for doing so.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I have said above, the Guardian is not really a source per Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. It is a publisher. A source has three components that need to be reviewed before it can be deemed 'reliable'. The context in which it is used matters as well. -- Avanu (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Avanu, the nature of your concern about this source is not apparent to me. Do you have a specific concern?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute! I tried to use information off the Guardian's blog source regarding Boehmer-Christiansen and it was reverted claiming the source was not valid. This sentence was off a blog source, "Manuel is that guy that thinks the Sun is like a giant, really hot ball-bearing." and was not a quote from Schmidt, who he is trying to attribute the statement to but made by the blog author - "bigcitylib". I am not confused that you have failed to properly attribute a claim to Schmidt.--JournalScholar (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Messed up statements and sourcing....
The following sentence is not reliably sourced and the sourcing is confused in general:
 * This paper was published as a viewpoint, which are not peer-reviewed and often give controversial voices a platform.

The Foster submission is cited as the journal special issue, when it clearly is not. And the statement by E&E is cited without proper attribution as a general statement of fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The E&E Mission Statement explicitly says, http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee-mission.htm


 * "..viewpoints and technical communications that are not peer reviewed and often give controversial voices a platform."


 * The appendix to the Foster submission is the table of contents for that issue of the journal.


 * Are you claiming the paper was not published as a viewpoint and that viewpoints in E&E are not published without peer-review?--JournalScholar (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is clear the intent here is not intellectual honesty as not only does the Guardian's blog source say the same thing but I also provide a copy of the journal's table of contents.--JournalScholar (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that you read what I wrote, and continue straight on to WP:NPA and WP:AGF? To clarify: If you want to cite Carte, cite Carter, although I see no reason why he should be considered a reliable source in this context. What you really are doing, however, is citing the jornal for its table of contents. So in reality, this is a disguised primary source. Carter makes no statement about this particular paper, as far as I can see (although I only skimmed his submission). You then combine this with E&E's own mission statement - another primary and self-published source, in violation of WP:NOR. And you seem to suggest that the position taken in the paper is "controversial", when it is about as controversial as the claim that the moon is made of green cheese. It is utterly, obviously, and uncontroversially wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Would this journal issue's table of contents behind a paywall that will be criticized because it cannot be verified be considered a valid source? I separated the sentences, they were combined simply for space. Wait a minute, I cannot use the journal's own statement that Viewpoints are not peer-reviewed to prove that viewpoints are not peer-reviewed? Are you serious? I do not accept that argument in anyway. So if the Guardian cited a blog that said viewpoints are not peer-reviewed in E&E that would be acceptable? Do you see the absurdity of your argument? I am not suggesting anything about the paper being controversial, E&E states they can be. I removed this as it is irrelevant.--JournalScholar (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I ask again, do you believe viewpoints are peer-reviewed in E&E or not?--JournalScholar (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:PAYWALL. Yes, such sources are acceptable. You can also cite the journal via the Carter submission if you clarify it ("Table of contents for E&E Issue xx", as reproduced in Bob Carter, "Submission to..."). Sure, you can use the journals statement. But then, make clear that it is the journal's statement and applies only to E&E ("According to the publisher, viewpoint articles in E&E are not peer-reviewed" would be how I would phrase it). And there still is a WP:SYN problem, namely that you put together two primary (and borderline) sources to suggest a conclusion that neither of them makes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Those corrections have been made and the sentences are now separate statements of fact.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still WP:SYN. Have you read it? The UN example is exactly appropriate. You use the (primary source) statement to imply that Schmidt is wrong. No reliable source has this connection. Thus, you have performed unwarranted synthesis. IIRC, the conclusion is also wrong - BC seemed to have considered publishing the paper as a full paper, but the reviewers thrashed it. She still published it. This exactly matches Schmidt. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Stephan is correct about WP:SYN. The problem we have at the moment is that JournalScholar feels entitled to edit in any way he feels appropriate, without regard to WP:3RR or WP:CONSENSUS.  We'll have to see how long that orientation lasts.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My additions are factual regarding the paper and add a NPOV. They make no statement or imply anything about Schmidt as my additions support his claim that the paper was published. What is misleading is Schmidt implies that the paper was published as peer-reviewed despite rejection by an editor, this is false and not a NPOV. I have added the corrections suggested by Schultz and separated the sentences.--JournalScholar (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Guardian article tells us that every paper is peer reviewed: "Every paper that is submitted to the journal is vetted by a number of experts, she said". So I don't see what the problem is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No they are not, I will challenge anyone on this point. Her use of the word "papers" was referring to peer-reviewed papers. She would not consider a viewpoint a "paper" as their mission statement makes clear, "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed, as well as shorter personal viewpoints and technical communications that are not peer reviewed and often give controversial voices a platform." - http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee-mission.htm - Are you claiming viewpoints are peer-reviewed when the mission statement of the journal explicitly states that they are not?--JournalScholar (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

JournalScholar, you appear to have a real dedication to an agenda here, one that is making it difficult for you to perceive things properly. The Guardian is unequivocal on this point: '"The editor sent it out for review, where it got trashed (as it should have been), and [Boehmer-Christiansen] published it anyway," he says.' This article links to the BigCityLib blog, which contains copies of emails by Boehmer-Christiansen on the ClimateSkeptics mailing list in which she says quite plainly that peer reviews of Manuel's paper "were not positive". Boehmer-Christiansen might subsequently have relabelled it as a "viewpoint", but that doesn't make it untrue that it was reviewed (indeed reviewed negatively) -- and she then proceeded to publish it anyway. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The only one here with an agenda and that is you. I have never argued that it was rejected by a reviewer(s) and then published as a viewpoint (opinion piece). E&E intentionally publishes controversial viewpoints for debate. I am well aware of the blog source the Guardian article links to as I have referenced it here multiple times and it explicitly says, "...his paper could not be published as peer reviewed, but as a viewpoint. As you know, I like to publish what is considered outside currently accepted ideas" - Sonja. This is a very important distinction as peer-reviewed papers carry legitimate scientific weight as opposed to opinion pieces. It also completely changes the context of the charge as she did not disregard reviewers to publish a paper as having the legitimacy of passing peer-review. This goes to her credibility as an editor of a journal for upholding those standards. Opinion pieces have no scientific weight. A reader of this page should know the whole truth for a NPOV, especially considering this is a BLP.--JournalScholar (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My intention is not to claim it was not submitted for peer-review or failed peer-review but that it was not published as having passed peer-review.--JournalScholar (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah -- so you accept the truth of Schmidt's claim (as reported in the Guardian) that the paper was reviewed negatively and she published it anyway? That's progress.  Now, then -- what to do about our article here?  Currently we have a problem with WP:SYN, as both Stephan Schulz and I have pointed out to you (also a problem with sentence grammar).  You're using a combination of primary sources to make a point.  We'll need to find a way around that.  As for the "sun is made of iron" passage -- we're headed to WP:DR on that one.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a strawman argument as I never was arguing this. Do you accept that it was published as a viewpoint and that viewpoints are not considered to have passed peer-review in E&E? Do you also accept that this information is necessary for a NPOV in this BLP? The combination of primary sources has been separated into two separate sentences, which are both statements of fact and necessary for a NPOV. I have multiple legitimate lines of argument relating to the Sun is made of iron nonsense. 1. It it fails WP:V as attributable to Schmidt and 2. it is not a NPOV representation of the paper. Why are you intent on misrepresenting a scientist's theory? Your agenda is clearly not a NPOV but to disparage the BLP.--JournalScholar (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I question Schulz's objectivity here as he has been reported as being associate with William Connelly, http://www.conservapedia.com/William_M._Connolley His constant defense of Connelly's BLP makes me believe this to be true, http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=William_Connolley --JournalScholar (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that you cite Conservapedia as if it had any credibility speaks for itself. How the fact that I prefer accurate, well-sourced, NPOV coverage of one BLP should somehow disqualify me from demanding the same at another is, to say the least, hard to understand. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Conservapedia was simply what made me do further research and IMO was verified by your defense of Connelly's BLP who has been involved in Wikipedia edit controversies revolving around climate change issues, http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-4241293.html - I do not believe you are objective on these issues.--JournalScholar (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll let Stephan response for himself on that latter point. As for your question above: this term "viewpoint" is internal to the journal and we are better off not using it.  Instead we should stick to what reliable sources such as the Guardian say: in this instance, the paper was sent for peer review, it got negative reviews, and Boehmer-Christiansen published it anyway.  If there are reliable sources asserting that she relabeled it as a "viewpoint" then we can include that as well.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait the journal explicitly states that it is a viewpoint but we should stick to the mischaracterization by The Guardian? Are you serious? I will never accept that argument as I find it absurd beyond all imagination. The reliable source is the journal!!! I ask again (you never answer questions), Do you accept that it was published as a viewpoint and that viewpoints are not considered to have passed peer-review in E&E?--JournalScholar (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't accept this -- because the Guardian makes it clear that it was peer reviewed (and then published despite the negative peer review). The journal, in discussing itself, is a WP:PRIMARY source here, and Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY sources.  Read it closely: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."  The only basis for this "viewpoint" business is the primary source, and the reliable secondary source here tells us that things went differently (the paper was peer reviewed).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Was it published as a viewpoint? - Yes or No?--JournalScholar (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Resumed
JournalScholar, you seem to be trying to synthesise an argument against the clear statement of a reliable secondary source, using primary sources in contravention of WP:PSTS. Please desist. It doesn't matter if Sonja B-C relabels pieces as "viewpoint" pieces, the point made in the secondary source is that she uses the journal to publish papers that fail peer review or are inadequately peer reviewed. . . dave souza, talk 23:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the original research in saying that the E&E paper was published as a Viewpoint and that Viewpoint articles aren't peer reviewed. The Guardian makes a big deal out of Gavin Schmidt saying that nothing at all is peer-reviewed at E&E, and the link to the PDF from the Senate shows the paper was printed under the heading "Viewpoints and Technical Communications" rather than "Refereed Papers". In addition, you have the official website of E&E where Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen says "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed, as well as shorter personal viewpoints and technical communications that are not peer reviewed and often give controversial voices a platform." So, while it might be outside of the scope here to say it *is* peer reviewed (because not all parties agree), it is very much reasonable to say something *isn't* peer reviewed since ALL of them agree on that bit. -- Avanu (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a very important distinction to note that it was not published as having past peer-review. --JournalScholar (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Are viewpoint papers considered having passed peer-review in E&E? Yes or No? Without this information the Guardian statement is not a NPOV of this incident.--JournalScholar (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, please have a look at the Guardian, where Boehmer-Christiansen is reported as saying that all papers submitted to the journal are "vetted by experts" (layman's language for peer review). It seems very much like inappropriate OR to use primary sources to suggest that this paper was not peer-reviewed when the secondary source reports both that all papers are "vetted by experts" and that this particular paper was reviewed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you read anything that anyone writes here? No one is suggesting that it was not submitted and failed peer-review. Sonja admits this, What is a fact is that it was not published as a paper that passed peer-review.
 * Are viewpoint papers considered having passed peer-review in E&E? Yes or No? --JournalScholar (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I kind of have to agree with JS's logic there. Also the Guardian article is pretty clear -- "The editor sent it out for review, where it got trashed (as it should have been), and [Boehmer-Christiansen] published it anyway". There is a blog source out there saying the phrase 'vetted by experts' is a bit of a copout way of not having to say peer-review. So it is a bit of OR to strictly say 'vetted by experts' is exactly the same as 'peer review'. It sounds to me personally that this Boehmer-Christiansen is trying to walk a fine line in simply publishing what the staff likes personally and having a bit of peer review too. Of course, I expect that the more snooty journals probably often engage in a bit of bias as well, they just don't wear it on their sleeve quite so much. The libel article from the Guardian is funny to me because in the US it wouldn't get the time of day... you know 1st Amendment and all... gotta love having it. Regardless, the statement that this is a viewpoint is supported by secondary and primary sources, and unless there's a substantive rationale that shows its somehow undue to say otherwise, I don't see why it couldn't be indicated. After all, it doesn't really affect BLP for Boehmer-Christiansen, it might for the author of the paper, but I assume he is comfortable with having her comment on his paper. -- Avanu (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is puzzling, Avanu: what is the secondary source that supports the "viewpoint" claim? The Guardian says unequivocally that this paper was sent out for review.  If we then include a statement saying that it wasn't sent out for peer review, surely it will be confusing for readers.  Dave Souza is right -- we should stick to what the secondary source says here (WP:PSTS).  In "real-world" terms, my understanding of what happened here is that Boehmer-Christiansen sent it out for review, it got trashed, and she then published it as if it hadn't been peer-reviewed ("Viewpoint") -- but for our purposes here we don't have a good secondary source that supports that point.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Guardian says unequivocally that this paper was sent out for review." Where does it state that in unequivocal terms? Gavin asserts that it was sent out for review. He doesn't say who reviewed it or for whom they were doing the reviewing. One can reasonably assume that something could fail a review of peers and still be claimed as having been 'vetted by experts', which is the only thing Boehmer-Christiansen asserted. Do you actually think that the quote from http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee-mission.htm of "shorter personal viewpoints and technical communications that are not peer reviewed and often give controversial voices a platform." would mean that these 'viewpoint' articles are never peer reviewed or could it mean that the article did 'not pass a peer review process'? Does being 'peer reviewed' generally mean that something passed that review? If I casually told someone, yes, I wrote a paper and it was peer reviewed, would they assume it was approved by my peers if I said nothing more? -- Avanu (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is exactly what they would assume. Publication that depends on peer review only happens if the peer review process includes approval by the reviewers.  As for who reviewed it -- peer review would be "blind" -- no-one but the editor would know who did the reviews and it would be unethical for the reviewer to disclose their identities; anyway it's hard to see why it matters, since no-one is proposing including their identities here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, it is unequivocal that the paper was published in the Viewpoint section of E&E, we have a primary source to that effect. We also have a primary source, E&E itself, that says "viewpoints and technical communications that are not peer reviewed", which according to what I think you just told me could easily be papers that failed peer review. With this in mind, we end up where we started. A paper that was 'peer reviewed' (strict meaning), not 'peer reviewed' (loose meaning), and 'vetted by experts' (nice dissembling in that phrase). -- Avanu (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But the secondary source is entirely clear -- it was sent out for review and published despite being trashed. This is sufficient here.  The rest of it relies on primary sources that would give the impression of contradicting the secondary source and create confusion for the reader.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The secondary source says it was published. The primary source says it was published as a viewpoint. So... we are to argue with the clear statement of our primary source? -- Avanu (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The secondary source says it was published after being sent out for review (and trashed). I don't see why we would then add something that amounts to saying it was published as if it hadn't been reviewed ("Viewpoint"), particularly with only a primary source that indicates this.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No statement is being added that says it was not submitted for peer-review and failed. Are you even trying to communicate with me? Sonja is very clear on this, it was submitted for peer-review, failed and thus could only be published as a "viewpoint" (an opinion piece). Because viewpoint pieces do not have to pass peer-review to be published and are not considered as having passed peer-review. It is absolutely false that she published it as a viewpoint claiming it was never sent out for peer-review. She states the complete opposite. --JournalScholar (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But since that's what it means to state that this was published as a "Viewpoint" article, why would we include it? Really, the paragraph containing that sentence was quite confusing: it said both that the paper was peer reviewed and that it "wasn't".  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the current sentence implies that it was published as having passed peer-reviewed despite reviewers rejecting it. This is not what happened and misleading. All the paragraph said was that it was published as a viewpoint and viewpoint articles are not considered peer-reviewed. Your intention to distort this event out of context is obvious and intellectually dishonest. You have shown to not even be able to follow protocol and edited the article before a resolution was reached in dispute resolution, I have no idea how your editing is even allowed after such dishonest behavior. --JournalScholar (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You must mean: not resolved the way you would have preferred. As for the sentence -- it implies no such thing.  Really, you are over-interpreting this: it does not imply that it had passed peer review.  It only says that the paper was published despite being reviewed negatively -- which is what the source says.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing was resolved, you just decided it was on your own which is pure nonsense. It clearly implies it was published as having passed peer-review without context stating otherwise. Stating that it was published as a viewpoint which are not considered to have passed peer-review is a very important distinction not the current half-truth that exists on this BLP. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYN regarding sentence on Canada
The article here now contains the following sentence: "Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011." The source is a NYT article that does not mention Boehmer-Christiansen. The paragraph seems to imply that Canada withdrew because of Boehmer-Christiansen's participation in the open letter to Harper. The sentence should therefore be removed per WP:SYN -- or, at a minimum, per WP:TOPIC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with this. I simply found it while researching this BLP and thought it was notable.--JournalScholar (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone did this change already. The protection has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits with Dispute Resolution not being reached
A dispute resolution was never reached on this sentence and Nomoskedasticity went ahead and edited the article how he felt like to this wording, The Guardian reported that Boehmer-Christiansen published — against the recommendations of a reviewer — a paper in Energy & Environment claiming that the Sun is made of iron - I attempted to correct this and receive warnings from his buddies. The process here is a joke and it is clear Nomoskedasticity intent is to negatively distort the context of this event and BLP. --JournalScholar (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Naturally I dispute this account, and anyone with an interest is welcome to review the DR/N discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please review it and you will see no such resolution being reached, least of all for the current wording. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, the fact that you have been reverted by several different editors is worth noting carefully. As for the comment about "buddies" -- these are editors I have not encountered prior to working on this page.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dave Souza is not an impartial editor and associated with Connelly as well. As was predicted by one of the two impartial editors involved in this, more did come to your rescue to make sure this half-truth remains on this BLP despite nothing being resolved in dispute resolution. This is an embarrassment to this process. Your failure to respond to my actual arguments or address my questions is evidence enough for anyone reading this who is intellectually honest. At least Avanu has made this effort. --JournalScholar (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks: see below, or the history of the talk page of JournalScholar. . . dave souza, talk 10:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think you both need to go back to dispute resolution. I think this is a relatively minor debate over something that could be easily written in a compromise fashion that easily makes whatever points the both of you seem to care about. I've seen several options offered, but apparently nothing good enough. If you can't agree on something, then just leave it out entirely for now. Very esoteric stuff like this will leave you helpless to find the typical 'reliable source', and it may be helpful to see if a policy exception can be made for some of these well-informed blog pages. Just an idea, but you guys need to stop butting heads back and forth on the exact same issues again and again. -- Avanu (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the point about "no reliable sources" relates to the "Viewpoint" issue -- and I'm glad at least for the fact that there's recognition of the WP:RS and WP:SYN problem. But just to be clear: JS is also complaining about the difference between the following two versions of the sentence: "The Guardian reported that Boehmer-Christiansen published — against the recommendations of a reviewer — a paper in Energy & Environment claiming that the Sun is made of iron" and "The Guardian reported that a paper claiming that the Sun is made of iron was published by Boehmer-Christiansen in Energy & Environment, against the recommendations of a reviewer."  This is a complete waste of time -- they differ materially only in use or avoidance of passive voice.  If necessary, we can discuss the former issue further at DRN -- anything can always be discussed further -- but I see no reason to do so with a view towards making an exception to policy, particularly to accomplish an edit that will confuse readers, all to address an overinterpretation afflicting a single editor.  As for the latter -- surely it's time to drop the stick.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is only a waste of time to you because you have no intention of reaching any sort of consensus on this issue. What sort of exception to policy would be made exactly? What do you mean by "dropping the stick"? --JournalScholar (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

For those of you who do not know me, I am a regular dispute resolution volunteer at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

I am going to address all of the above questions, but first I need to clear up some misconceptions. What does everybody here imagine a resolved content dispute looks like? A resolved dispute means that all of you agree on the article content. If anyone does not agree, then by definition the dispute is not resolved. Clearly, this content dispute is not resolved.

The other side of that coin is related to the tile of this section: "Edits with Dispute Resolution not being reached". Dispute Resolution is not a court. We make no rulings. Not having reached a resolution of the content dispute says nothing about whether an edit is or is not allowed. there may be other reasons why an edit should not be made, but not achieving a resolution at DRN is not one of them.

It may be instructive to examine why the content dispute was not resolved. Normally, dispute resolution involves some folks like you -- not experts on resolving disputes or on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but very knowledgeable on the topic at hand, and a dispute resolution volunteer like me -- experienced in resolving disputes and an expert on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but zero knowledge about Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. Together we should be able to come to an agreement or to decide where you need to go next.

Alas, in this particular dispute, someone (Avanu) who is neither a regular editor of this page or an experienced dispute resolution volunteer jumped in and did something that was pretty much guaranteed to torpedo my efforts. As I was starting to explain the policies on reliable sources, he started telling everyone that I was wrong and arguing for his interpretation of what Wikipedia reliable source policy is. I tried to get him to discuss his theory at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but he, perhaps sensing that he would be shot down, insisted on debating it right in the middle of your content dispute resolution. Naturally, some of you got sucked into the discussion, at which point I quit responding.

Now I don't think Avanu meant to have that effect -- he seems like a very nice fellow and not in any way someone who means to cause trouble, but it did destroy any chance I had of being effective.

As I left I posted a last-ditch effort to help you (not a particularly good plan, but the best I could come up with in that situation), ending with the question "Does anyone have any objections to this proposed plan of action?" None of you replied, so I walked away.

Right now you are on a path that will lead to the article being protected from edits -- probably for a month this time -- and with a distinct possibility that some of you will be blocked. Alas, I don't see how I can help you in this situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as we saw, the RS policy was not directly relevant to what their argument was about. It was related, but it wasn't the central point, and as I said there, and strongly still believe, while you have somewhat of an understanding of the RS policy, you are missing the boat on some of the key bits. I never sensed that you were going to be right or that other people would 'back you up', because anyone who actually understands the RS policy wouldn't agree with you on those substantive points that I was focused on. (I actually thought that we had you converted and understanding, but I suppose I was wrong.) -- Avanu (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Guy, I meant to leave a message on your talk page thanking you for your efforts; I'm sorry I didn't do that earlier, I do feel you made strenuous efforts to be helpful, and it did seem for a time that progress could be made. As for the future of this article: I'm not so convinced it will be protected -- more likely, JS will be blocked if he continues to revert multiple editors.  I realize that JS is still not happy (though he did achieve having the sentence be framed as "The Guardian reported" rather than "Gavin Schmidt asserted", and he even seemed to be content on that score (as per a post on DRN which I can find if necessary).  But the fact that multiple editors are rejecting his edits is something that should be noted carefully, as I indicated above.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I got the mob rules message the first time. --JournalScholar (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * JournalScholar, you've been warned on your talk page not to make personal attacks: the fact that you deleted that posting means that you've acknowledged receipt of the warning. Once again, assume good faith and you're advised to strike your comments accusing other editors of dishonesty, lack of impartiality, association with others you're in disagreement with, "mob rules" or of not being "intellectually honest". Wikipedia is about verifiability, and is not the place for your synthesis to portray what you regard as "The Truth". Having said that, there should be a way forward to improve the wording of the article, preferably with more secondary sources. . dave souza, talk 10:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Everyone here can read the blog source the Guardian article cited and my other sources and knows what I have stated is not my synthesized "truth". If everyone is happy with this half-truth remaining on this BLP then I say the Wikipedia process was very successful and you should be very proud. --JournalScholar (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI my removal of any talk material here was accidental but that does not stop Nomoskedasticity from hyper obsessively spamming my talk page with "warnings". --JournalScholar (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So, back on track. Despite what a couple of these editors seem to think about this being a 'done deal', one consistent thing I have seen in JournalScholar's points is that he favors a very strict adherence to sources. That kind of rigor is to be expected for an article that *is* a biography. We're not talking about an article that is simply a tangent of something related to a person, but the person's actual biographical article. So there is absolutely no question whatsoever that a stict guideline should be upheld. You say things like drop the stick and make oblique threats about JS being blocked, but before this conversation becomes about that, I say, stick to reasonable, logical, thoughtful debate on this, don't edit war, be patient, and recognize that this is a biography.

If it weren't for JS's persistence here, you would have printed a statement that, while seeming to be true, is a misrepresentation of what the source actually says. Do I personally care and think it would have mattered? Not at all. But keep in mind, the Guardian said that both authors claimed to receive a libel warning from E&E. I doubt Wikipedia has to worry here since we are relying on secondary sources, but if we don't use a very diligent and strict approach to sources, *especially* when an editor says 'there's a problem here', then we're not following our own rules. It may seem like a hassle, it might make you grit your teeth, but BLP policy is unambiguous. Focus on the debate, not each other, focus on what the other editor is trying to communicate, even if they aren't seeming clear to you. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's all fine, Avanu -- except that JS is proposing to depart from what the Guardian says, using sources in a way that poses a problem of WP:SYN and WP:PSTS. So if we're going to insist on strict adherence to policies regarding sources, then we won't do what JS wants to do about "viewpoint" and all that -- which is fine with me.  FWIW, I continue to believe that the Guardian is reporting on what Gavin Schmidt asserted -- so even on that score I don't agree that JS had identified a real problem -- but I am content to leave the point here in less precise terms in the way you proposed.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that there is a basic disagreement here about the proper interpretation of WP:RS. I am not going to debate it here, but I do want to inform everyone that the dispute exists. I believe that Avanu is misunderstanding a basic aspect of the policy. Avanu believes the same about me. On several occasions I have invited Avanu to attempt to resolve this at WP:RSN but so far Avanu has declined. The bottom line is that you should (if you believe Avanu) take any comments I make about reliable sources with a grain of salt, and (if you believe me) take any comments Avanu makes about reliable sources with a grain of salt. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Guy, I don't believe anyone here is contesting that the article from the Guardian constitutes a reliable source, so we don't need to debate that. As Nomo says above, this is about whether you see one interpretation of the source as synthesis or not, and how to reconcile that with other competing primary and non-reliable secondary sources. -- Avanu (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? So it was not you who, at 02:38 on 5 July 2012 (UTC) wrote "Your statement that The Guardian is a reliable source shows that you don't have a firm grasp of the WP:RS policy"?  ( Diff )  --Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a perfect example of the 'interpretation of syntax' problem we were solving in this entire debate. :)) In my comment just before yours here, I said "the article from the Guardian constitutes a reliable source". In your quotation of me just now, you quote me saying "The Guardian is a reliable source" shows you don't know WP:RS well enough. It is that fine point that I made... a publisher isn't a "reliable source" (in the Wikipedia meaning of that phrase). A publisher may be a "source"(per the 'three related meanings') or it may be called a "reliable publisher". But, here is the important bit, it is *not* a "reliable source" as a publisher alone. It must include an author, even if there is no byline, there is always an author, and it must include an article. No article means nothing to evaluate for reliability. Conversely, an article with no information about where it came from cannot be firmly tested for reliability, hence the need for the other two criteria. There is obviously some wiggle room in the idea of publisher/author. People can self-publish, and publishers sometimes print things without bylines. But the WP:RS policy is clear on the guidelines for this. If the author and publisher are the same person, the person must be 'authoritative in relation to the subject'. If the publisher doesn't show a byline, it must at least have a 'reliable publication process'. In other words, they are not simply a sieve for anonymous drivel, but have editors who are guided by a process and have a committment to quality, and are themselves likely to be subject-matter experts. In other words, the 'reliable publication process' stands in for the anonymous author. However, most of the time, we see all three parts very distinctly. We know who the publisher is, we know the author, and we can read the article in all cases. Have I explained this clearly, I hope? -- Avanu (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"Sun made of iron" controversy, again
It doesn't appear that this discussion ever reached consensus on whether or not to include the "Sun made of iron" claim. Per WP:BLP, we need an unambiguous consensus to include contentious material such as this. Hence I removed the claim, and another editor restored it, asking for more discussion.

My recollection is, there are periodic efforts to add this contentious claim, which is based on a comment by Gavin Schmidt, an ideological opponent of Boehmer-Christiansen. It appears to me that the claim is intended to make her look bad, foolish, or both. Hence I'm reopening the discussion, and I formally OPPOSE inclusion of the item, per the previous discussion and BLP rules. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideological? Perhaps the "ideology" of physical science as against SB-C's political science? . . dave souza, talk 21:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Real Climate faces libel suit for details of the conflict between Schmidt and SBC. "According to Boehmer-Christiansen, she and Schmidt have a "long-standing" conflict that began many decades ago..." Another reason to avoid BLP comments by Schmidt re SBC. And vice-versa. Pete Tillman (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't get it. There is no doubt that that atrocious paper was published by E&E, or is there? That Boehmer-Christiansen seems to mistake scientific criticism for a personal vendetta is not a reason not to include any criticism. There may well be a clash of cultures, but if she pretends to publish a scientific journal she has to live with a scientific culture, and that includes robust criticism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This same line of reasoning was invoked against Anthony Watts recently. We should not make reference to scientists that consider his output to be misleading or poor, because naturally Watts disagrees with them, therefore these same scientists are ideologically opposed and/or biased against him. — TPX 09:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#109_BLP_articles_labelled_.22Climate_Change_Deniers.22_all_at_once WP:BLPN] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers WP:CFD] the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512140810/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301012402/http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/geography/about_us/staff.aspx to http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/geography/about_us/staff.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312211736/http://www.gaia-technology.com/sa/about/forum-member.cfm?ID=3 to http://www.gaia-technology.com/sa/about/forum-member.cfm?ID=3
 * Added tag to http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/v3600623g8txh577/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140220023543/http://www.getcited.org/pub/102898795 to http://www.getcited.org/pub/102898795
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140220051259/http://www.getcited.org/pub/103287641 to http://www.getcited.org/pub/103287641
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120920174306/http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/inspired/article/1341/ to http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/inspired/article/1341/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)