Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-08 State of Fear

Sandboxed version of State of Fear Overview:

State of Fear/Overview

Groundrules

 * Please read "suggestions for mediators" to get an understanding of what to expect from mediation.
 * Please assume good faith, focus on content, not contributors, and observe Wikiquette.

Opening statements

 * Would each participant please describe briefly (preferably in no more than 200 words) what you consider to be the main issues? Sunray (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley (talk)
I'm not perfectly sure I do know what this dispute is about. A brought the case, but other than OR and see-the-talk-page its really not clear what the problem is. I seem to have said that is me stating the problem.

So. Lets assume that "The central thesis of the book is that the following five points are misused for personal/professional gain by some people" is the point up for dispute. I don't disagree that those points are in the book (which is why I'm happy to replace it with " Various assertions appear in the book, for example:"); only that it is nowhere stated that those are the central thesis; nor are there any RS's that say so. When challenged on this A responds that the points are in the book (which isn't in dispute) and that RS's have said that each of those points are in the book (also not in dispute) but never addresses the point that no-one has said that they are the central thesis. When I last looked, A seemed to have abandoned his 5 points so I'm not sure what the remaining dispute is William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Aryeh M. Friedman Opening Statement
The disbute centers around what the definition of WP:OR is in the context of a work of fiction that is also based (accepting the author's methods) on non-fictional facts. More then any novel before it "State of Fear" is a very fuzzy blending of fact and fiction Michael Crichton taking extreme care to disnquss between the two in the narative. For this reason he provides many cit ations and other "standard" WP:RS like methods in the text of the story.

All 5 points made in the "centeral thesis" debate are all stated in the fictional, non-fictional and support material parts of SoF in roughly the same order presented in the "Overview" section of the article and all such materials are mutually re-enforcing as to MC's main aim with SoF (including the critical thinking point found at the end of the section). MC does not make all 5 statements in the same place, but as stated above some leway must be given to the author because it is in novel form. Since all of these are drown directly from the text there is no need to give citations. --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Mariordo Opening Statement

 * First, I think context is important in reaching an agreement, as the skirmish below demonstrates. (Personal attack removed) [see my comments below in the Civility section]. Sunray (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Second, SoF is a fictional novel whose arguments are supported by footnotes that are real, as Crichton’s (MC) disclaimer of the book explicitly says, and nobody has questioned this fact so far. Also, MC gave interviews and made several speeches regarding the issues he raised in the book. In any article about any book, these materials would be considered good enough as a RS, and there is no need to be quoting the book repeatedly, but because the novel is a critic to the consensus GW theory, the treatment has been different. WMC has been cleansing edits, asking for RS as if this was a scientific paper, and questioning the book and complementary materials by MC as if they are no good as a RS.  This is very annoying for editors neutral or with a different view, and particularly for less experience editor such AMF, who still has not fully grasped the subtleties of editing avoiding OR. I did try to intervene with an edit with lots of quotations, and a proposal to redo the controversial section without success.
 * Bottom line: (1) I hope this mediation will establish fair and clear rules for editing the SoF article, mainly, how to proper use Crichton’s materials within Wiki policies, (Personal attack removed) . (2) The Overview section needs to be redone. I as explained just before the edit war started, other Wiki articles about books have an overview section only when there is not a detailed “Plot summary”, but in our case there is one. I propose to eliminate the present overview and while the current content is moved to a new section “Issues raised in the novel” or anything of that sort, rework the content, as now it has been awfully chopped and it is not properly referenced, and to write again based on the rules to be decided on this mediation. This new section could be located between the “Author's afterword/Appendixes” and the “Criticism” section, so as to be part of a preamble for both the scientific and literary criticism. The “Metaphorical Use of Characters” section needs to be improved too. Sorry for the delay and for exceeding the 200 words, but now my time availability is limited.--Mariordo (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Opening statement by Kim D. Petersen
Very short comment, since i have rather little time on hand at the moment.

The major issue here is original research and synthesis, as far as i can see. The trouble begins when we, as editors, begin to perform literary analysis and/or interpretation of the text - or cherry-pick single opinions and bind these into the editors (our) interpretation of how the text should be understood.

Since we are dealing with a topic of political controversy, its important that we stick strictly to the text (without interpretation) or whatever interpretation secondary reliable sources provide, and tag these as such (ie. X said that ... According to Y ....). And its (obviously) also rather important to ensure that weight is applied appropriately.

As a side-note, i find the personal attacks here (and on t:SoF) rather annoying, and a problem that should be dealt with rather strongly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Opening skirmish
[Note: I have separated the opening statements from the rest of the discussion]. Sunray (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: as I thought, A has shown by his statement that he just doesn't understand what I'm saying. Can someone rephrase it in a way he will at least get the point? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WMC: Your comments were The above comment was objected to by AMF. Would you be willing to rephrase this request? it should be sufficient to just say that it seems AMF has misunderstood what you have said. You might, also, give an example. Start a new section, if you like. Sunray (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this is a talk page and doesn't have it own talk page... A objected, with the cryptic edit comment comments before opening statemens are complete should be held... besides I think when Mar postrs his statement later this morning it will clear some things up. I don't see anything in that requiring me to rephrase. He appears to be merely objecting to me updating my opening statement. I don't understand why; I reject his objection. I don't understand what you mean by "example". A has completely failed to understand what I've said. I can't think of another way to say it, except at greater length. OK, I'll do that: the issue is not that these "5 points" are in the book. I don't dispute that they are, individually, present (I've said that already). The issue is the assertion that "The central thesis of the book is that the following five points...". There is no RS for decided that these, and only these, 5 points are the central thesis. The book itself does not say so. No review says so. No-one but A says so. Errrm... thats it. Is that any clearer? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * [moved by WMC out of WMC's section] I understood the comment completely and think it is a red hearing... besides I think there will be some resolution when Mar does post his openning statement (since mine and his where both longer then 200 words and we repeated each other we decided to divide it up where he discusses one issue I discuss an other in the opening statements) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You have made your point so many different ways it is obvious what it is... and as I said it is a false arguement... do you want us to site chapter and verse in the plot summary also... it is quite simple if the article is about a book and the content is from the book then no citations are needed... and thus attempting to make the arguement that it is WP:OR is a red herring... now if you care to debate if stuff that is in the book and in the order stated (as well many non-book sources from MC restating the points) is not valid be my guest but you have yet to show that a single point raised is not valid and within the limits imposed by fiction is not clearly stated in the book and else where. --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Free for all discussion
A said I understood the comment completely - I don't know what he is referring to by "comment". Does he mean my opening statement? In any case, I object to him calling my stuff a red herring, hearing, skate or plaice. Are we going to be polite here or not? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Clear abuse, eh?
A has accused me of "clear abuse" for reverting the edits of a banned user. In A's version of wiki, It doesn't matter if a user is banned or not if an edit they made is apporiate and does not violate any other WP policy.... therefor it is completely inappropriate to rv it. Its been pointed out to him that he is wrong but he doesn't seem to have absorbed the point, and has refused to retract his insults. Unless A improves, this is going to be a short mediation William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not an insult just a statement of fact... the user in question had neither posted abusive and/or inappropriate content (and was in fact implicity accepted by you until they where banned)... in short your using the fact they are banned to remove valid and well sourced content... if this is not underhanded at best then please explain why it is valid provided that the only reason for removal is them being banned --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. You've been pointed to this before: its in the diff I posted above, viz, and the text is Reverting actions performed by banned users. That should be clear enough; if it isn't, you can follow the link in banned users to Banning policy to find Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason. If you can't understand this simple and obvious point of policy, what hope is there? Now, have another go: read the policy carefully, and reconsider your words William M. Connolley (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be policy but it is also unenforceable... the reason being that a non-banned user can reintroduce it (which Mar did) and thus is no longer from a banned user... unless your willing to ban every single person who just happens to disagree with you (which is not in the spirit of WP) then you're just stuck with it... please consider you're actions since they show a very clear bias --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy specifically forbids another user reintroducing such content, but see my comments below in the "Clarifying policy" section. Sunray (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The actual diffs
Orginal RV:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Fear&diff=240530710&oldid=240153494

My rv of the rv: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Fear&diff=240591396&oldid=240530710

M introducing proper WP:RS to the rv'ed material: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Fear&diff=240592109&oldid=240591396

WMC's rv of the entire new rv'ed and new content from M: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Fear&diff=240634351&oldid=240592109

My rv of WMC's rv (with note to see talk page): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Fear&diff=240639869&oldid=240634351

WMC's rv of me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Fear&diff=240681652&oldid=240639869

M's rv of WMC (with note to see talkk page): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Fear&diff=240694959&oldid=240681652

WMC rv of M: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Fear&diff=240732040&oldid=240694959

--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you are going with this, AMF. I've commented on the policy below. I note that the text and citation that are there now are considerably different than what was added by the banned user. What point did you want to make about this? Sunray (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on!
Please stop. This is not going anywhere. Would you both be willing to take a break and cool off while I refactor this page and try to get down to the issues? Sunray (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do please have a go William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility
Oh, this is excellent! Really, mud wrestling feels soooo good. So much to learn from one another this way!

Before we go much farther, I want to talk about how we talk to one another here. At the top of the page there is a reference to WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I think we should bear these in mind, as in my experience, failure to assume good faith, personal attacks, and, in general, a lack of civility will make it very hard to get anywhere.

WMC, when I asked you to rephrase, above, I was concerned about your tone. Unfortunately I didn't say that and I am sorry I didn't. I meant your statement: "A has shown by his statement that he just doesn't understand what I'm saying. Can someone rephrase it in a way he will at least get the point?" How could this be stated in a more civil manner? You don't need to answer my question, but I would appreciate it if you would reflect on it.

AMF: "... and thus attempting to make the arguement that it is WP:OR is a red herring..." "... not an insult just a statement of fact" Likewise, AMF. Some reflection, please.

I think that we can do better folks. How about the two of you take a break for a few hours. I will come back to your opening statements and any other material points you have made and make some comments. I trust that you will both strive to discuss this case without sarcasm, insults or invective, in short, in a civil manner. BTW, the opening statements begin to provide a picture of the conflict. I will have some questions for you. Meanwhile, perhaps the other participants could make opening statements in the space above. Sunray (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (Personal attack removed) In fact there are *MANY* climate scientist who disagree with the basic hypothesis and resulting theory behind GW including members (and former members) of the IPCC (the main UN body charged with studying the climate) and founders and co-founders of some of the most influential environmental groups.  (Personal attack removed)


 * Quick note: I was using the comment about the hypothis only to show that the debate on GW is not as definitative as WMC and others attempt to show (Personal attack removed) Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:NPA Sunray (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We are currently awaiting two other opening statements. I would hope that all participants can provide a statement within the next day or so. If they are unable to do that, perhaps we should proceed with what we have. I will contact Kim and Mariordo to see where they are at with their statements. Sunray (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for . M's statement doesn't clarify much; too vague for my tastes. But we can wait for K's statement, perhaps William M. Connolley (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the first part of M's opening statement as it focuses exclusively on the contributer, not the content and is, essentially, a personal attack. I did take the time to check the diffs that M provided. In two cases, I found that WMC went close to the line in his comments, but in each case, so did his interlocutor. The first case was on Talk: The Deniers when IMO, both he and M were patronizing to one another. The second case was on Talk:State of Fear when he and AMF were rude to one another. Again, I must caution participants that this mediation is not about one of the parties to mediation. We will need to stick to the issues that were raised on the project page of this case. I hope this is, by now, clear. Sunray (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Third (fourth, fifth, whatever) opinion?
I have sometime edited the SoF article, and followed the discussion related to this case. I am only very marginally related to it: I have interacted with some of the involved editors but, I believe, not in a controversial way. Is my two cents' worth of opinion encouraged/deprecated/allowed? Goochelaar (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is OK with me, but I guess we all have to wait for the fourth opening or until the mediator says so before starting an open discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. As far as I'm concerned, this is a discussion moderated by our mediator. But its not a general discussion of the SoF article: its about the bits we're disputing William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * * Which seem to be expanding by the moment --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Goochelaar: You would be welcome to join this mediation. You can do that by going to the project page and signing in under Who are the involved parties. When you have done that, please return to this page and make an opening statement. Then we will respond to your "two cents worth." Would you be willing to do that? Sunray (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually, I am not sure I am an involved party, and I would not like to muddle the situation further. Perhaps I shall make some remarks (which might be relevant to this debate, or not) in the article talk page. Goochelaar  (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Need for overview or not
If it wasn't for the confusion even MC fans have on what is fact and what is fiction in the book we need something like the overview or the equivelent before the plot line.... but other then that I agree with your basic restructuring ideasa. --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * M said: "I propose to eliminate the present overview and while the current content is moved to a new section “Issues raised in the novel” or anything of that sort, rework the content, as now it has been awfully chopped and it is not properly referenced, and to write again based on the rules to be decided on this mediation..."


 * How about we create a sandboxed page for the overview? We could work on it here or in a subpage of the article talk page. I've established a subpage of this talk page if folks want to work on it here. M. would you be willing to take the lead in this? Sunray (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See my rough outline below, but sorry, I can not take the lead, I foresee it would be very time consuming, though I am willing to collaborate from time to time.--Mariordo (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of opening statements
KDP says: "The major issue here is original research and synthesis." You mentioned that you may not have much time to put into this. I was going to suggest that you respond to the first two questions (under "Original research"). However, if you are not able to do so, I will suggest that others respond to the Q's in that section.

Original research
Please sign each block of text you contribute.
 * What is the definition of OR in the context of a work of fiction?


 * I define it as what themes the author gives the most number of pages to.  It can also be measured by if he creates a character make one point and nothing else; as he does on the PLM points.   Since I agree this is not a science you need to look at outside sources.  Both me and M did just that and you rejected every source as not being objective.   So like I attempted to say before this "attack" is a red herring because we did present evidence of RS. [Comment by AMF]
 * WP:NOR is a policy that defines original research by Wikipedia editors. It, thus, has nothing to do with an author whose work is the subject of an article. Please show diffs of other participants comments on sources so we can examine them. Sunray (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And by the actual policy (quoted below) there is nothing that disallows such sourcing:




 * 3.6 Popular culture and fiction


 * Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How does WP:SYNTH apply to the situation under mediation.


 * It applies only when you reach a conclusion that a intelligent reader would not of said was not the thesis.
 * The author needs to use some outside forum to make the same points
 * (Optional) A third party says the same thing.


 * Me and M have repeatedly given evidence of all 3 items above, but you have rejected every single one out hand [almost always not giving a reason even though both me and M have given detailed  reasons for the validity of the source in every case]

--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I presume that the "you" referred to above is WMC. I think you have a general sense of what WP:SYNTH is about. However, it refers to editors drawing conclusions that are not supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Everything we editors say must meet WP:VER. There is a burden of evidence| on the editor who adds, or restores, material to WP. That means that if a statement does not have a citation and another editor challenges it, either a source must be provided or it may be removed. Sunray (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See below --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See below, where? Sunray (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Central thesis
Q's for AMF:
 * What does the author say about his central thesis?


 * In the book the points are offered in the order provided and no other intervening points where made and MC constantly rehammers those 5 several times wihtout revisiting any other point in the fictional part.  The comments about the PLM {Political-Legal-Media-{Intellectual} Complex] though admittedly not strong in the fictional part are revisted several times in afterword and appendices.   In the 12 speeches listed on his site all 12 have are used to hammer home all 5 points (except the on on Next because his focus is on genetic engineering not GW there [but he makes the same general criticsms of it he does of SoF {namely if you did a global search and replace on "Genetic Engineer" and replaced it with "Global Warming" it would also agree with all 5 points)


 * Would you be able to reproduce exactly what MC says about the five points? Does he say they are his central thesis? Sunray (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He does not use the word thesis (or equiv) anywhere in the fictional portion of the book, but the order of topics covered and the afterword support that was in fact his intention (along with speeches and various reviews citing the SoF being an extension of one or more speeches.   I will break the answer up into four pars 1) What the fictional part says, 2) What the afterword says, 3) What the speechs say and 4) 3rd party linkage between the speechs and SoF.


 * In order to see what SoF says here is a page by page outline of the book looking only at the non-fictional points raised by the characters:


 * Assumptions: Kenner == WC, Evans == the reader, Haynes == the skeptical research community as per the undisputed metaphorical use of character.
 * Sub points may give amplification but they do not define the main point of the passage.
 * Plot development is taken to mean sections that do not impart any new "facts" on GW
 * As per disclaimer and footnotes on them they are using real data sets with Crichton adding a trend line to each one not in the original NASA GISS data set. MC notes this holds for all graphs in the book.


 * P. 1-47 Plot development


 * 47-50 Extreme pressure on researchers to produce results friendly to their funding sources.
 * Key passages:
 * "Drake was very red in the face clenching his teath. 'Pars,' he said, 'I am asking you to consider the realities.'
 * 'You are not!', Einarsson said, pounding his fist on the table again. 'The reality is you do not want me to publish!'" (47 itals in orginal)
 * Pars then goes to explain that his findings found no evidence that the Iceland ice pack is melting faster then it did in the first half of the 20'th century [in fact is melting slower then this time frame]. Crichton provides a reference to an actual paper in a footnote to this effect. (as per disclaimer in overview we should accept the footnote at face value)
 * Drake then purposes new wording for the opening paragraph and Pars says the proposal is fiction and any observed changes are due to local conditions only (too long to quote but is on 48)
 * "But there are other considerations", Drake said soothingly, 'We must all be aware there are disinformation groups funded by industry -- petroleum, automotive -- who will seize on to the report that some glaciers are growing [A's note covered in the footnoted paper], and use it to argue against global warming.  That is what they always do.  They snatch at anything to paint a false picture'.
 * [Pars] 'How the information is used is not my concern. My concern is to report the truth the best I can.'
 * 'Very noble', said Drake,'perhaps not to practicle'.
 * 'I see. And you brought the funding source here, in the form of Mr. Morton, so I don't miss the point?'" (48)
 * "'Not at all', said Einarsson, 'We understand each other only too well. If you withdraw your support, you withdraw your support.'" (50)


 * 50-92 plot development
 * 92-100 The global holes in GW theory (local ones covered later)
 * Key passages:
 * Hayne's presents Evans with a graph showing global temperatures (all graphs are in Celisus) from 1880 to 2000 then asks him to give general interpretation of it (92-93). Then she asks:
 * "'Okay' she said. "So the rapid increase since 1970 is was caused by what?'
 * [Evans] 'Rising carbon dioxide levels from industrialization.'
 * 'Good. So in other words,as carbon dioxide goes up, the temperature goes up."
 * 'Yes.'
 * 'All right. Now you mentioned the temperature started to rise from 1890 to 1920.   And we see here it did.  What caused that rise? Caron dioxide?'
 * 'Um... I am not sure'
 * 'Because there was much less industrialization back in 1890, and yet look how temperatures went up. Was carbon dioxide rising in 1890?'(93-94)
 * She continues questioning Evans until she puts up a new graph showing global tempatures vs. CO2 from 1940 to 1970 and then asks:
 * "'This is a thirty year peroid. One third of a century during which temptures declined [Itals added by A].  Crops where damaged by frost in summer, glaciers in Europe advaced.  What caused this decline?'
 * [Evans] 'I don't know'
 * 'Was carbon dioxide rising during this peroid?'
 * 'Yes'
 * 'So, if rising carbon dioxide causes rising tempatures, why didn't it cause tempatures to rise from 1940 to 1970?'
 * 'I don't know', said Evans..." (94-95)
 * After a small back and forth she asks:
 * 'These graphs show that carbon dioxide rose constantly, but temptature does not. It rose, then fell, then rose again.  Even so, I take it you remain convinced that carbon dioxide caused the most recent tempature rise?'
 * [Evans] 'Yes. Everybody knows that's the cause.'
 * 'Does this graph trouble you at all?'
 * 'No', Evans said, 'I admit it raises some questions, but then not everything is known about the climate. So no it does not trouble me.' (96)
 * She then proceeds to show a graph (US only) correcting for the urban heat island effect (1880-2000) and asks:
 * "'Does this graph look like the first one one we saw of world tempatures?'
 * [Evans] 'Not exactly'
 * 'What was the change in tempature since 1880?'
 * 'Looks like, uh, a third of a degree'
 * 'A third of a degree Celisus in a hundred and twenty years. Not very dramatic' she pointed to the graph. "And what was the warmist year in the last century'
 * 'Looks like 1934' (97)
 * She then goes on to explain the urban heat island effect and how tempature data is gathered. She asks Evans if the graph is at all troubling and he says no.   She then turns the questioning over to  a grad school assistent who proceeds to explain land use variations in detail and how no one has measured completely how to correct for them.  He also points out that contrary to common opinion the  scientific journals are no more accurate then TV news in reporting such data. (98-100)


 * 100-204 Plot development
 * 204 Kenner says the data used for the Vantunu suit is available and does not agree with NERF's evaluation of it.
 * Note MC does not footnote any of the material between 204 and 215 but Sonjung does provide Evans with a list of citations for each point on 219 which MC repeats in the non-fictional biblography
 * Key passage:
 * "[Kenner] 'But Bolder already has the good data. He has had it for months."
 * [Evans] 'What?'
 * 'The data show no rise in South Pacific sea levels for the last thirty years'
 * ' What? ' (A's note since this was Italed it was worth adding but the response is only plot development)


 * 205-208 Plot development
 * 208-211 Kenner presents localized climate data for antartica and discusses how little is known about how the climate really works (MC's words not mine) with brief mention about how inaccurate climate models are
 * Key passages:
 * "[Kenner] 'The atmospher is a bigger mystery then anyone will admit. Simple example: No one knows for sure if global warming result in more clouds, or fewer clouuds'
 * 'Wait a minute', Evans said. "Global warming is going to rise the tempature, so more moister will evaporate in the air and therefor more clouds'.
 * [Kenner] 'That is one idea. But higher tempatures also mean more water vapor in the air and therefor fewer clouds'
 * 'So which is it?'
 * 'Nobody knows'
 * 'The how do the make computer models of the climate?', Evans said
 * Kenner smiled. 'As far as cloud cover is concerned, they guess'" (208-209)
 * Minor back and forth for plot development (209-211)
 * There is a graph presented on 211 showing temptatures for 1888-2004 for Pt. Arenas and Sonjung explains to Evans:
 * "'It's the record [the graph] from the weather station at Point Arenas, near here.  It's the closest city to Antartica'.  He tapped the chart and laughed. 'There's your global warming.' [A's note the graph shows a decrease in average temptaure of .7 degrees C (based on trend line added by MC onto the NASA GISS data)


 * 211-216 Plot development (except the citation list mentioned about on 215)
 * 215-218 Evan's attempts to refute Kenner's data presented on 208-211
 * Key passages:
 * "[Kenner] 'You mean you're not a paid flunky for the environmental movement?'
 * [Evans] 'No. The fact is--'
 * 'You're not an environmental stooge? A mouth piece for a great fund raising media machine [A's note first ref to the PLM in the book] --- a multi-billion dollar industry in its pwn right -- with its own private agenda that's not necessarily in the public interest?'
 * 'God damn it--'
 * 'Is this pissing you off?' Kenner asked.
 * 'You;re damn right it is!'
 * 'Good', Kenner said, 'Now you know how legimate scientist feel when their integrity is impugned by slimy charactizions such as the one you just made. Sanjong and I gave you a careful, peer-reviewed inerpretation of the data.  Made by several groups of scientists from several different countries.  And your response was firt ignore, then make an ad hominem attack.  You didn't answer the data. You didn't provide counter evidence.  You just smeared with innuendo'
 * 'Oh, fuck you' Evans said. 'You think you have an answer for everything. But there is only one problem: No body agrees with you. Nobody in the world thinks Antartica is getting colder".
 * 'The scientests do,' Kenner said. 'They published the data'" (217-218)


 * 219-270 Plot development
 * 271-276 Media/IPCC report manipulation and lack of accuracy in GCM's
 * Key passages:
 * Kenner explains why the iceberg event was timed when it was (see main article plot summary):
 * "'Exactly. All a part of any good starburst media plan. You arrange an event with good visuals that reinforces the point of the [NERF] conference'" (271)
 * A two filler quotes between Evans and Kenner proceeds then Kenner says:
 * "'Well take your favorite fear, global warming. The arrival of global warming was announced dramatically by prominent climate scientist, James Hansen [A's note quoted in the current sci. crit. section saying MC misused his results], in 1988. He gave testimony before a joint House and Senate commitee headed by Senator Wirth of Colorado.  Hearings where scheduled for June, so Hansen could deliver his testimony during a blistering heat wave.  It was a setup from the beginning'" (271)
 * Kenner then raises the issue of the 19995 IPCC report being rewritten after the scientific committee signed off on it:
 * "'The UN formed the Intergergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the late 1980's. That's the IPCC as you know -- a huge group of buraucrats, and scientists under the thumb of  buraucrats.  The idea was that since this was a global problem, the UN would track climate research and issue reports every few years.  The first assesment report in 1990 said it would be very difficult to detect a human incluence on climate, even though everyone was concerned about it.  But the 1995 report announced with conviction that there was now `a discernable human influence` on the climate.  You remember that?'
 * [Evans] 'Vaguly'
 * 'Well the claim of `a discernable human influence` written into the 1995 summary report after the scientists them selves had gone home. Orginally, the document said the scientists couldn't detect a human influence on the climate for sure, and they didn't know when they would.   They said explicitly `we don't know`.  That statement was deleted, and replpaced with a statement that said descirnable human influece did indeed exist.  It was a major change'" (271-272)
 * A's note: MC does not footnote this passage but it is a claim repeated by several former members of the scientific panel that wrote the 1995 IPCC report (including one of the lead authors) and is well documented in several books and TV documentaries ("The Greate Global Warming Swindle" comes immediatly to mind).
 * Kenner then explains that Hansen orginally predicted a .35 (C) degree increase in the next 10 year but it was in fact only .11. Kenner then goes on to explain how Hansen was able to justify this
 * fact as actually being proof of GW: (273)
 * [Kenner] "' He said quote `The forces that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficent to define future climate change.` Endquote. And he argued that in the future that scientests should use multiple scenerios to define a popssible range climate out comes'" (273)
 * A's Note: The full quote from Hansen sited in the sci. crit. section has Hansen specifically say that MC used the worst case scenerio without stating that it was one of many possible scenerios.  The above quote clearly shows this not to be true.
 * Kenner then explains that Hansen was off by 350% and:
 * [Kenner] "'Compare to other fields. When NASA launched the rocket carrying the Mars Rover, they announced taht in two hundered and thirty-five days, the Rover would land on the surface of Mars at 8:11 P.M., California time.  In fact, it landed at 8:35 p.m.  That is an error of a few thosuandths [ital in orig.] a percent.  The NASA people knew what they where talking about." (274)
 * Kenner then goes on to explain that some fields do allow you to estimate like on tax returns but no where near the 350% Hansen was off. (274-275)


 * 276-399 Plot development
 * 399 Extreme weather events have not increased in recent years (as evidence of unsupported "hype" by the pro-GW camp [political nto scientific])
 * Key Passge:
 * [Sanjong] "'Repeatly [A's note in ref to a previoos challange by Evans]. The studies show no increase in extreme weather events in the last century.  Or in the last fifteen years.   And the GCM's don't predict more extreme weather. If anything, gloabl warming theory predict less [Itals in orig.] extreme weather'" (399)


 * 399-406 Plot development
 * 406-423 More detailed presentation of urban heat island effect and conflicts of interest in funding7 of research
 * Haynes presents Evans with a number of graphs for specific cities showing that once the urban heat island effect is corrected for (even though the algorithm is not completely accurate) many cities that appeared to be warming in the last quarter century have in fact had stable climates and/or slight cooling trends (406-423)
 * Haynes then explains some of the procedures used for generating these graphs and hints that they may not be ethical:
 * [Eveans] "' You're saying that clikmate scientists are unethical?'
 * [Haynes] 'I am saying it is never a good policy for the fox to guard the hen house.  Such procedures would never be allowed in medicine, for example, where double blind experimeental design is reguired'"
 * She then explains that a number of studies have shown that assumptions (even on unconsensus ones) made by researchers tend to color their results and gives the example of two different groups where given lab rats that where completely normal in every way and one was told they where mental midgets and the other that they where sleectivally breed for maze solving, note there is no difference between the rats so ever, and the teams where supposed to time them on mazes.  The team that was given the `inferior` rats found they ran the maze slower then average and the ones that got the `superior` rats said that they ran the same maze sufficently faster then normal (423)


 * 423-430 Plot development
 * 431-434 Continuation of 406-423 with no new major concepts
 * 434-444 Plot development
 * 444-445 No such thing as a "primitive" climate (one free of human tampering)
 * Key passage:
 * Haynes explains to Ted that his speech on the virgin old growth forest was essencially BS because the ecosystem he said was primevil was in fact less then a thousand years old.
 * Twenty thousand years ago, the Ice Age glaciers receded from California, gouging out Yosemite Valley and other beauty spots as they left. As the ice walls withdrew, they left behind a gunky, damp plain with lots of lakes fed by the melting glaciers, but no vegetation at all. It was basically wet sand.
 * Twenty thousand years ago, the Ice Age glaciers receded from California, gouging out Yosemite Valley and other beauty spots as they left. As the ice walls withdrew, they left behind a gunky, damp plain with lots of lakes fed by the melting glaciers, but no vegetation at all. It was basically wet sand.


 * After a few thousand years, the land dried as the glaciers continued to move farther north. This region of California became arctic tundra, with tall grasses supporting little animals, like mice and squirrels. Human beings had arrived here by then, hunting the small animals and setting fires. 'Okay so far?' Jennifer said. 'No primeval forests yet.'


 * 'I’m listening,' Ted growled. He was clearly trying to control his temper.


 * She continued. 'At first, arctic grasses and shrubs were the only plants that could take hold in the barren glacial soil. But when they died they decomposed, and over thousands of years a layer of topsoil built up. And that initiated a sequence of plant colonization that was basically the same everywhere in post-glacial North America.


 * 'First, lodgepole pine comes in. That’s around fourteen thousand years ago. Later it’s joined by spruce, hemlock, and alder—trees that are hardy but can’t be first. These trees constitute the real ‘primary’ forest, and they dominated this landscape for the next four thousand years. Then the climate changed. It got much warmer, and all the glaciers in California melted. There were no glaciers at all in California back then. It was warm and dry, there were lots of fires, and the primary forest burned. It was replaced by a plains-type vegetation of oak trees and prairie herbs. And a few Douglas fir trees, but not many, because the climate was too dry for fir trees.


 * 'Then, around six thousand years ago, the climate changed again. It became wetter, and the Douglas fir, hemlock, and cedar moved in and took over the land, creating the great closed-canopy forests that you see now. But someone might refer to these fir trees as a pest plant—an oversized weed—that invaded the landscape, crowding out the native plants that had been there before them. Because these big canopy forests made the ground too dark for other trees to survive. And since there were frequent fires, the closed-canopy forests were able to spread like mad. So they’re not timeless, Ted. They’re merely the last in line.'


 * Bradley snorted. 'They’re still six thousand years old, for God’s sake.'


 * But Jennifer was relentless. 'Not true,' she said. 'Scientists have shown that the forests continuously changed their composition. Each thousand-year period was different from the one before it. The forests changed constantly, Ted. And then, of course, there were the Indians.'


 * 'What about them?'


 * 'The Indians were expert observers of the natural world, so they realized that old-growth forests sucked. Those forests may look impressive, but they’re dead landscapes for game. So the Indians set fires, making sure the forests burned down periodically. They made sure there were only islands of old-growth forest in the midst of plains and meadows. The forests that the first Europeans saw were hardly primeval. They were cultivated, Ted. And it’s not surprising that one hundred fifty years ago, there was less old-growth forest than there is today. The Indians were realists. Today, it’s all romantic mythology.'" (443-444)


 * 444-463 Plot Development
 * 463-467 Lack of experimental evidence of GW and/or many other environmentalist claims. Use of estimates instead of experimental data.  Flaws in computer models. Discrediting many of the claimed effects of GW.
 * Key passages:
 * Ted tells Kenner that GW will result in:
 * “Crop failures, spreading deserts, new diseases, species extinction, all the glaciers melting, Kilimanjaro, sea-level rise, extreme weather, tornadoes, hurricanes, El Niño events" (463)
 * Kenner proceeds to dismiss each claim in order:
 * Crop failure:
 * “Actually, scientific studies do not support your claims. For example, crop failure—if anything, increased carbon dioxide stimulates plant growth. There is some evidence that this is happening. And the most recent satellite studies show the Sahara has shrunk since 1980. As for new diseases—not true. The rate of emergence of new diseases has not changed since 1960.” (463-464)
 * Diseases:
 * "Not according to maleria experts" (464) [expanded on in the Appendices]
 * Species extinction (and impossibility of experimental or even observational evidence):
 * " 'Species extinction hasn’t been demonstrated either. In the 1970s, Norman Myers predicted a million species would be extinct by the year2000. Paul Ehrlich predicted that fifty percent of all species would be extinct by the year 2000. But those were just opinions.† Do you know what we call opinion in the absence of evidence? We call it prejudice. Do you know how many species there are on the planet?'


 * [Ted] 'No.'


 * 'Neither does anybody else. Estimates range from three million to one hundred million. Quite a range, wouldn’t you say? Nobody really has any idea.'


 * 'Your point being?'


 * 'It’s hard to know how many species are becoming extinct if you don’t know how many there are in the first place. How could you tell if you were robbed if you didn’t know how much money you had in your wallet to begin with? And fifteen thousand new species are described every year. By the way, do you know what the known rate of species extinction is?'


 * 'No.'


 * 'That’s because there is no known rate. Do you know how they measure numbers of species and species extinctions? Some poor bastard marks off a hectare or an acre of land and then tries to count all the bugs and animals and plants inside it. Then he comes back in ten years and counts again. But maybe the bugs have moved to an adjacent acre in the meantime. Anyway, can you imagine trying to count all the bugs in an acre of land?'" (464-465)


 * Glacier and Kilimanjaro melting:


 * [Kenner] 'Now, about all the glaciers melting—not true. Some are, some aren’t.'


 * [Ted] 'Nearly all of them are.'


 * Kenner smiled thinly. 'How many glaciers are we talking about?'


 * 'Dozens.'


 * 'How many glaciers are there in the world, Ted?'


 * 'I don’t know.'


 * 'Guess.'


 * 'Maybe, uh, two hundred.'


 * 'There are more than that in California. There are one hundred sixty thousand glaciers in the world, Ted. About sixty-seven thousand have been inventoried, but only a few have been studied with any care. There is mass balance data extending five years or more for only seventy-nine glaciers in the entire world. So, how can you say they’re all melting? Nobody knows whether they are or not.'


 * 'Kilimanjaro is melting.'


 * 'Why is that?'


 * 'Global warming.'


 * 'Actually, Kilimanjaro has been rapidly melting since the 1800s—long before global warming. The loss of the glacier has been a topic of scholarly concern for over a hundred years. And it has always been something of a mystery because, as you know, Kilimanjaro is an equatorial volcano, so it exists in a warm region. Satellite measurements of that region show no warming trend at the altitude of the Kilimanjaro glacier. So why is it melting?'


 * Sulking: 'You tell me.'


 * 'Because of deforestation, Ted. The rain forest at the base of the mountain has been cut down, so the air blowing upward is no longer moist. Experts think that if the forest is replanted the glacier will grow again.' " (465-466)


 * Sea level rising:


 * [Kenner] 'Sea level is indeed rising.'


 * [Ted] 'Ah-hah!'


 * 'As it has been for the last six thousand years, ever since the start of the Holocene. Sea level has been rising at the rate of ten to twenty centimeters—that’s four to eight inches—every hundred years.'


 * 'But it’s rising faster now.'


 * 'Actually, not.'


 * 'Satellites prove it.'


 * 'Actually, they don’t.'


 * 'Computer models prove it’s rising faster.'


 * 'Computer models can’t prove anything, Ted. A prediction can’t ever be proof—it hasn’t happened yet. And computer models have failed to accurately predict the last ten or fifteen years.' " (466-467)


 * Extreme weather and El Nino:


 * “[Kenner] 'Yes, indeed, lots of people think so. But scientific studies do not bear them out.† That’s why we do science, Ted, to see if our opinions can be verified in the real world, or whether we are just having fantasies.'


 * [Ted] 'All these hurricanes are not fantasies.'


 * [Aryeh's note: Kenner pulling up a graph is skipped to save space]


 * 'Here is the actual data, Ted,' Kenner said. 'US hurricane strikes over the last hundred years are clearly not increasing. And similarly, extreme weather is not more frequent globally. The data simply do not agree with you. Now, you also mentioned El Niño events.'


 * 'Yes…'


 * 'As you know, El Niño is a global weather pattern that begins when ocean temperatures along the west coast of South America remain above normal for several months. Once it’s triggered, El Niño lasts about a year and a half, affecting weather around the world. El Niño occurs roughly every four years—twenty-three times in the last century. And it has been occurring for thousands of years. So it long precedes any claim of global warming. But what threat does El Niño represent to the US, Ted? There was a major El Niño in 1998.'


 * 'Floods, crops ruined, like that.'


 * 'All that happened. But the net economic effect of the last El Niño was a gain of fifteen billion dollars because of a longer growing season and less use of winter heating oil. That’s after deducting $1.5 billion for flooding and excess rain in California. Still a net benefit.' " (466-467)

Note: I will resign when done with a new date and make a note at the bottom of the page that the outline is done (I need to run so finish this later) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * AMF: Please stop. This is not going anywhere. The author evidently does not say what his "thesis" is, nor speak about five themes. M has demonstrated how to use sources to get at major themes. That is how it should be done, IMO. The way you are quoting from the book proves nothing. Sunray (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What do reliable sources say about the thesis?


 * The Heartland Foundation also supports all five points and in the same order as done in article.  The only reason I didn't point to them is due to them getting past funding from ExxonMobil you would automatically discount it as not being a relivent source [note to Sunray: they have an entire site dedicated to dealing with SoF alone].   Even though EM did give them money they also gave money to mainstream groups like the nature converency and in fact gave more to these groups then the skeptical ones.  The AAPG also cited it when they gave the award.   But for some bizzare reason you have been unwilling in the past to accept this as RS.   I was trying to be diplomatic in the talk page but let me explicit here:  What gives you the right to declare some things RS and others not when one if the maintstream environmental groups and the other are people who do not agree with them completely. [Reply by AMF]
 * Would you be able to provide the citation for this? Sunray (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * AMF doesn't provide a citation, so its hard to know what he means. One Heartland page is this. I can't see the five points in it (or rather, I can see any number of points, but they don't pick out any five).
 * We're in a similar state for the AAPG. I found this. Again, the five points aren't obvious, instead we find the nutty Kenner’s repeated exposition of scientific studies shows that there is a substantial amount of evidence that the planet is not warming at all.  which AMF rather sensibly hasn't tried to include. AMF needs to add less text and more diffs/citations William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Side question: Why do you refuse to allow it be stated that AAPG changed it position on GW after giving that award to admitting that the general theory of GW is likely true but the details are too fuzzy. [Question by AMF]
 * Who are you asking this question? Sunray (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably me, since I've ripped out something like this a few times. Maybe he means this? To me that was obviously unacceptable; since I explained my removal of that text on the talk page I'm not sure why AMF is re-asking William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How are the five central points arrived at?
 * A) Reading the book 4.5 times now and having written past essays based on the content (i.e. I had to dig up the sources my self)
 * B) Catagorizing points made in the afterword, the appendices and his speeechs.
 * C) By verifing the order they appear in the fictional part of the book and how much time MC spent on them instead of other issues.

--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds like an example of synthesis. But if you can show that MC calls the five points his central thesis, fine. Sunray (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources
M says: "In any article about any book, these materials would be considered good enough as a RS, and there is no need to be quoting the book repeatedly, but because the novel is a critic to the consensus GW theory, the treatment has been different. WMC has been cleansing edits, asking for RS..."

Q for M: What light does a review of WP:RS and WP:VER shed on this statement? Do those policies distinguish between scientific and literary works?
 * I do not mind if you are more explicit, in principle they made no difference, but we are talking here about citing the primary source itself, since the content of the novel will have only brief transcriptions/descriptions on third-parties, which WP defines as the most reliable sources. Please clarify so no doubts on this point are left.--Mariordo (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Q for WMC: Why, with reference to policy, do you ask for reliable sources?


 * AMF asserts that ""The central thesis of the book is that the following five points are misused for personal/professional gain by some people...". This is a large claim, and needs support. It needs a WP:RS to say it. It is not enough to say "look, the text of the book contains these points." To use the book as the source, it would require the book to say "My central thesis is these 5 points...". But of course the book doesn't say that. The statement is a synthesis. If there is a review or somesuch that makes this statement then fine. But so far AMF has failed to find one, which suggests to me that it doesn't exist. In short, that these are the central 5 points appears to be AMF's personal opinion, and no more William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is the contention. Namely I argue that as long you can show author intent by their comments about the book and/or other material provided by them; you do not need a explicit "I will show X" in a novel unless it is possible to do without looking very weird in the narration (which for structural reasons is not possible with SoF).   This is almost as stupid as saying that the 10 commandants are not the central message of the Bible.  They where never presented as "this book shows X" they only appear as a part of a larger story in Exodus.
 * I wonder if you are confusing a book review with a WP article here, AMF. Unless the author has said: "My central thesis is..." I don't see how you can make that claim unless you have a source that says it. Sunray (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, you have discovered the heart of the matter. Good William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Both me and M have presented reams of evidence as to MC's intent in this area and every single source provided by the author repeats these points with no other points being held in common.  Some of them he focuses on more then others like he has made speechs specifically looking at the "not invented" here thinking in the mainstream environmental community, the dangers of politicized science, the lack of critical thinking in respect to environmental movements (he even uses this as the centeral theme in the appendix by showing but both Eugentics and the other thing [soviet farming methods] where never based on any solid science) and one point that wasn't made in the narative of SoF (group think in the scientific community).  Since all the refs are in the talk page and/or old versions of the article I will not repeat them here unless someone wants them.


 * Both me and M have consitently given you all the sources listed above.  That is why I said in any other "academic" (I know WP is not academic but it tries to hold the same standards) forum everything me and M presented is more then sufficent to meet WP:RS and thus is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we had best take a look at some of this evidence. Would you be willing to present some examples, with diffs, below? Sunray (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just trying to help. What if a similar content is wrote like this (this is just a very rough outline, including the refs format):
 * "''As it is characteristic in several Crichton's novels dealing with sci-fi such as The Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, Prey and Next, a common theme is his speculation about the risks and dangers of new technologies and scientific progress,(refs 1, 2 & 3) and he has always shown "skepticism about the limitation of science and technology as a tool in humanity's efforts to stave off disaster"(ref2). Similarly, a common theme is the limitation of humanity regarding the possibilities of technology.(ref1). Specifically in State of Fear some critics consider that Cricthon took his usual "paranoia of science, and scientists, to new levels"(ref3) as through the plot he raised the issues regarding: xxx, Crichton says we need better science (ref 1 pp. 152 and MC materials), xxxx, "Crichton is skeptical of the environmental movement, plainly saying that it is just as responsible as governments and economic interests in the exploitation of the environments..." (ref 1 pp. 152 and MC materials), xxxs, etc (all refs M Crichton materials and maybe some from ref3, that it is to the best of my knowledge the only specific book on the subject)

''
 * Refs (unfortunately all is paper books):
 * (ref1) Michael Crichton: A Critical Companion, 1996, by Elizabeth A Trembley, Chapter: Crichton's Literary Heritage pp. 26-30.
 * (ref2) The Science of Michael Crichton, 2008, Chapter: Introduction by Kevin Grazier (editor).
 * (ref3) The Science of Michael Crichton, 2008, Chapter: State of Fear: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid, by David Lawrence, pp. 131-132.
 * (ref4) The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, 1993, by John Clute & Peter Nicholls: entry on Crichton, Michael, pp. 273-74.
 * Plus, specific issues presented in the SoF Appendixes, mainly the Afterword and the transcription of the speeches and interviews he did during the book promotion, without interpretation or OR, just strict WP editing to the text of the source.
 * PD: Two comments, ref1 has also a detailed analysis of the science presented in the footnotes, what is truth, what was cherry picked, what is outdated, etc..., but that material would be useful for the new article on SoF scientific controversy branching for SoF that AMF is trying to push forward. Also, if my proposal flies or some variation of it, I am certain it is going to be very time consuming, and I do not have the time availability for such task. I could collaborate but I can not assume responsibility for the lead. I hope I was of some help.--Mariordo (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * M. has made a useful contribution, IMO. The use of sources looks o.k. The way it is written needs some work. I would like to get WMC's comments on this. Sunray (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * These are the sources we presented on the talk page (plus the speechs) thus the question was never WP:OR it was a red herring attempt to get disagreeable content out of the article.--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you be able to provide a couple diffs on this? Sunray (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with M's version, as it gets rid of the OR, which was always my objection. AMF's comment above re disagreeable content is nonsense, as this diff shows: I replace 5-points with various-assertions, but leave the assertions themselves alone (apart from removing some garbled stuff) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * AMF: I've just re-read the SoF talk page. The difference is that nowhere above does M say: "The central thesis of the book is that the following five points are misused for personal/professional gain by some people." That is what you claimed on the talk page. Several editors explained that such an assertion was OR and I agree. Do you see that now? I want to know that you do, so we can move on. However, if you are still not clear, let's continue discussing it until it is clear&mdash;because it is important. Sunray (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Compressing it down to 3 points is misleading since I can make a case for 5 but not 3 as being what the book asserts... I still argue that once all the fluff is removed the five are the only thing that remain and thus are by definition the thesis (i.e. you need not say "my thesis" if you include every non-fiction point made, additionally several reviews and interviews with MC do in fact say that is his thesis and I will cover that in parts 3 and 4 of the above... you need to take it as a whole not saying since there is no clear thesis statement there is no obvious thesis [MC doesn't even argue this in his speechs {he in f6act argues the 5 points in them}]... so in short it is jump the gun to say it is SYNTH before all the evidence is layed out (will take a day or two since there is a fair amount of manual data entery)... That has always been my issue with WMC and WDP is they jump the gun and do not wait for the full evidence to be presented.... like everything else first impressions can be wrong. --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Any of the participants are free to comment on any of the above questions. From your responses I will try to pull together a further agenda to address the issues. Sunray (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying policy
[This is a refactored version of statements made by WMC in an earlier posting. Only matters related to this mediation are addressed here].

[AMF seems unclear about policy regarding the following]: William M. Connolley (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) ... reverting edits of banned users
 * 2)  ... OR, which is what this case is actually about
 * The revert was not done to handle user abuse... [WMC] is using the fact the person was banned to delete content [he does] not agree with...
 * I understand RS/OR/whatever but just have a different definition than [WMC]. Neither of our definitions violates any policy. So please do not point to a policy as a shield for your thinking. If this wasn't clear up to now it should be now.
 * --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC

Commentary

 * 1) From WP Banning policy: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban... Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban," Was this edit made in defiance of a ban? We would need to look at the diffs to determine this. If you both want to go there, fine with me.
 * 2) RS and OR are defined in policy. So there is no such thing as "a different definition." Editors of WP are bound by WP policies. It sounds like we need to take a look at the different interpretations of the policies. How about we do that now?
 * Sunray (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

!?!
AMF wrote as per disclaimer in overview we should accept the footnote at face value. What does this mean? Are we pretending that all MC's footnotes are accurate, honest and in-context quotes from his sources? Why should we believe this? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * #) MC does in fact make that cliam (and is quoted word for word in the current overview)--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * #) In a draft rewrite of the sci. crit. section (really a new article) that has not been fully sourced or checked for NPOV yet I provide clear proof that no one has yet to find a inaccuracy in what sources are cited the only dispute is did MC misuse the sources [The draft article deals with this but has not been checked for WP:OR, WP:NS or any other WP standard]
 * #) The draft is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aryeh_M._Friedman/State_of_Fear_Debate

--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hopefully this is all irrelevant, but: no, I don't accept the footnotes at face value William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is actually two subquestions we need to ask when deciding what value to put on the footnotes:
 * Does the foot note refer to a real scientific paper
 * Does MC's interpretation of the paper (if it exists) is in keeping with the author's of the paper take on the findings


 * I think it is pretty clear from what I cited on the draft sci. crit. article that item 1 is true in all cases and all the controversy is over item 2.  When I said at face value I meant only item 1 and not 2.  So for this reason I am rv'ing your deletion of a statement of fact in the overview since it does in fact show that all the papers are real and without it the question is left open. --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Re . The point is, we don't know MCs intention. We do however know what the disclaimer says. So lets not add stuff that is conjectural. As for your points: (1) seems probable; I'm not disputing it at this point. (2) is very unlikely; indeed its wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Goals of Mediation
I think it is clear that the following is true:


 * 1) Due to all the back and forth editing the article has become quiet muddled and unreadable
 * 2) Almost any "fact" relating to SoF will be challenged by me or WMC

So I would like to see what people think of widening the goals of this mediation to be:


 * 1) Come to an agreement on all facts presented
 * 2) Reorganization of the article to the level it can leave the "starting-article" catagory

Note we can leave the sci. crit. the way it is now even though I find it the single most non-NPOV section and it does not actually cover the real criticism it is only a back and forth between competeting quotes. Thus would open a can of worms beyond the scope of this mediation (when it is ready to go live I suspect there will be a new mediation needed for it though) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems like a reasonable proposal. I would like to begin by getting agreement on the following as facts:
 * The author does not refer to a "central thesis" nor to "five points." To claim that he does is original research.
 * An acceptable way of addressing major themes in an encyclopedic manner has been described by both WMC and M.


 * AMF: Do you agree with these two points? If so, we can move on. Sunray (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I accept item 2 and for the shake of moving forward agree to disagree on 1 (I will not insist on "thesis" style wording), but I want to make sure of the following: the themes/points that are included are in fact all the ones covered in the page by page outline (I will finish the whole project of the outline, showing how the afterword fits in and speeches etc. since it provides a very good summary to start the writing from)... as to which wording to use I prefer M's --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is progress.


 * Now I think we should turn to another important goal of this mediation: To find a way for the parties to this conflict to be able to collaborate with one another. Is this goal achievable? If not, one or more editors may have to agree to stop editing the article. However, I think collaboration is an achievable goal. What do others think? Sunray (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, good. "central thesis" is gone. The next point might be to consider what should be the points listed (or perhaps we go with M's version). I'm concerned by the themes/points that are included are in fact all the ones covered in the page by page outline (I will finish the whole project of the outline, showing how the afterword fits in and speeches etc. since it provides a very good summary to start the writing from which appears to be proposing we accept an unknown text. Note that I cut down the 5 to 3, removing The entire debate over Global Warming is based on climate models and not actually using the Scientific Method, specifically no direct observations and/or experiments are performed.  Namely it is based on speculation and not science. - its possible that MC really says this, but the idea that no direct observations are used appears so ludicrous that I find it hard to believe - and That these same elites misuse the "science" behind Global Warming to their own ends without ensuring that such "science" is sound got merged into the other "Elites" point. Does anyone care? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. This needs to be addressed. We can come back to my, more general, point later. Perhaps we might even model collaboration in the way we address this. Hi ho! Sunray (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am starting the indenting over so we don't hit the right end of the screen. I think we can collaborate if we can agree on certain ground rules I would want them close to this:


 * 1) Any non-footnoted claim by MC in the fictional section is taken at face value as being fiction
 * 2) Footnoted claims are taken at face-value in that they do reference real sources and no claim is made what so ever about the accuracy of the claimed findings (I do not mind saying this explicitly in the article so it is clear to the reader).  Namely they are to be considered accurate only so far as the fiction is concerned but unless independently agreed on by a 3rd party it is not treated as a non-fictional fact.
 * 3) Any notes about procedures used for collecting and ananylizing (by MC not the orginal sources) the data should be taken at face value.   Specifically the trend lines added to the NASA GISS graphs should be taken at face value and the note in the bibilogrophy stating that between the hardcover and paper back that NASA GISS changed the baseline years for the graphs (*AND* that it is subsiquently reverted back to the baseline years used by MC).
 * 4) The NASA GISS graphs should be taken at face value (I variefied them against the actual NASA data set... WMC be my guest to repeat my verification) but it should be noted that MC changed some scales to emphasis different aspects of the data then NASA GISS does.
 * 5) All points in the afterword and appendices should be treated as non-fiction and be held to the same quality requirements we place on non-fiction works (except the citations should be taken at face value as per the above def)

Now to the speicifics the "to their own ends" needs to be seperate because it is a seperate point made by MC in a completely different section of the narative then the social order one (the outline will so that when complete). Second the ending monolog from Morton does in fact specifically use the wording "unscientific", "lack of experimental evidence" and "based on [guessees]" guesses is in brackets befor MC has already established else where that computer models (a few sentences before) are nothing but guesses in his thinking.

--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1 of course I don't object to. 2 isn't an obvious problem, but nor do I see how it helps in the slightest, and until you can demonstrate its relevance with diffs I'm going to ignore it. 3 also. 4 also. 5 also. "to their own ends" - don't understand what you mean. In short, I don't see how any of that helps. We have a proposal to re-write the overview by M. I'm presuming you object to that, because you have your own (unfinished) version, but can you be explicit: do you accept M's proposed version or not? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually M's is a fill in the blank one where once we agree on what points they get filled.  For that reason I agree with his wording but we still need to hash the points out... I sould have the page by page done by about noon US eastern time --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I said: "to their own ends" - don't understand what you mean. To be more explicit: can you please explain what you mean by that phrase William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That the PLM (MC's term) uses artifical crisis to induce a "State of Fear" (hence the title of the book) in the populace so it can maintain the current social order which by definition has itself at the top. If your impatiant for me to finish the outline the actual dialog that this comes from is on 498-506 --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What are the plans to proceed with this discussion? Sunray (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about anyone else but my plans are to finish the outline so we have a common reference for deriving the language of the the points in M's version then hash the points out. --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. What's your timing look like? Sunray (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to tell because there is a lot going on right now.... I hope by Monday or so.... there are about 4 or 5 more non-plot development passages to handle--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that you don't go too far down a road without consensus. How about giving us a sample of what you are proposing? Sunray (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the goal of the outline is only to give a common reference point I think it is safe to finish it without feeling I am wasting my time --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor change to preamble
I added the professional opinion comment because correctly states the capacity in which the comments where made (unless I am way of base this does not need RS since this is self-evident). The context made it unclear which capacity the comments where made in. Also unless I don't see something I think this actually strengthens the relative merrit of the comments made. --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this mediation should become the primary venue for discussing minor chnages to the wording. That still belongs firstly on the article talk page. My view is that you're provoking an unnecessary dispute with this change; it would be more useful if you'd finish the outline you keep promising William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Am I correct that we are talking about this addition? I'm not sure why we would want to add "in their professional view" to this sentence. Since scientists are considered to be professionals it seems unnecessary. Moreover, the way it is written is not grammatically correct. I do think that it is valuable to discuss here, because one of the goals of this mediation is to enable editors to work together better. We need to begin to realize that when an experienced editor reverts it is almost always for a good reason. I am going to raise this when we get around to discussing collaboration. Sunray (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Whats going on?
I'm puzzled by. Sunray has already asked AMF to stop this kind of stop; and to me also it just looks like yet more OR William M. Connolley (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not true see the back and forth in section 10.  Oh since I also got an electronic copy of the book the process should go a lot faster I got 3 sections done tonight with 2 or maybe 3 more [I have sscanned ahead and found 2 but I seem to remember a 3rd also] --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm none the wiser as to what AMF intended by adding all that text. I'm wondering if we could discuss some groundrules for future editing. AMF, would you be willing to do that? Sunray (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In princible yes.... what I mean is I am open to the discussion but the orginal case is not completely settled. --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Which brings us back to, where are we? As far as I can tell, the article is largely in a state of "my" version, and I don't see a clear proposal for changes, here. AMF says the original is not "completely" settled but I don't know what he regards as unsettled. I think we have a proposal from M for writing As it is characteristic in several Crichton's novels dealing with sci-fi such as The Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, Prey and Next, a common theme is his speculation about the risks and dangers of new technologies and scientific progress,(refs 1, 2 & 3) and he has always shown "skepticism about the limitation of science and technology as a tool in humanity's efforts to stave off disaster"(ref2). Similarly, a common theme is the limitation of humanity regarding the possibilities of technology.(ref1). Specifically in State of Fear some critics consider that Cricthon took his usual "paranoia of science, and scientists, to new levels"(ref3) as through the plot he raised the issues regarding: xxx, Crichton says we need better science (ref 1 pp. 152 and MC materials), xxxx, "Crichton is skeptical of the environmental movement, plainly saying that it is just as responsible as governments and economic interests in the exploitation of the environments..." (ref 1 pp. 152 and MC materials), xxxs, etc (all refs M Crichton materials and maybe some from ref3, that it is to the best of my knowledge the only specific book on the subject) and I'm fine with something like that. If AMF is also agreed, then lets put it in. If not... state why William M. Connolley (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * AMF: Are you agreed to approach it as WMC proposes? Sunray (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My absence
Sorry for not being around for a while... school ate me I should be done with that within 48 hours and will come back and answer all the hanging issues --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear that. I will look forward to your further contributions. Sunray (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Closure
It seems time to close this mediation. I regard it as a successful mediation, but would like to read confirmation of that from participants. Reasons for regarding it as successful, IMO, are:
 * 1) Personal attacks and criticisms ceased.
 * 2) Interpretations of the policy on original research with respect to the article were clarified.
 * 3) Divergent views on use of sources were clarified.

For me the biggest milestone was to get beyond personal attacks and to begin focussing on content rather than contributors. We were then able to get to substantive matters. One of the key issues that needed clarification was whether Wikipedia editors could summarize the central thesis of the book. After considerable discussion, it was determined that this sort of "book report" approach was not encyclopedic and not in keeping with WP policies. It was emphasized that the use of sources was essential for editors.

Please indicate whether you subscribe to the above statement. If you do not, please suggest an alternate phrasing. Then, if there are no further issues, I will close. Sunray (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with your closure. And thanks for your efforts William M. Connolley (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)