The article doesn't establish why the author is notable Wikipedia notability criteria. Alot of people can claim they've written a few books and have been a PI on a Federal grant.-- PotomacFever 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize that Wikipedia had stooped to allowing self-published resumes to be published. Amazing. There's not one item of significance about any of the controversies he might have been involved in (beyond the relatively trivial one about the Minneapolis bridge collapse), and nothing that discusses how his ideas may not have always been correct or verified. (I'm currently preparing a policy paper for an major environmental group, and I was checking this site to see if a citation was worth using. It turns out he doesn't have the expertise in the area that he's being cited for so I'm not going to use the reference.)
It is correct to discuss a person's most important and notable works both in the body of the narrative biography section and in a list of works or publications. Please see Bernard Williams, which is a Featured Article, for an excellent example of a biography article where this is done. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Not other editors, just one. All editors except PotomcFever found the article highly notable. Read the discussion. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 01:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a trememdous amount of such material in this article that has no place in an encyclopedia entry, such as what Romm's brother does for a living, entire paragraphs on projects he mere "assisted with" at the US DOE, and unverifiable peacock phrases like "world's leading expert". I have tried to remove the most egregious of these, over the objections of a POV-pushing editor.
Additionally, the namecalling and Meat Puppetry by user:Ssilvers, as well his misuse of terms such as vandalism for edits which are clearly not is an abuse of Wikipedia policy. I urge him to moderate his actions and work with other editors to make this a better entry. FellGleaming ( talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think removing it was the right thing to do ( diff here) - the first cited reference is to a rather sarcastic opinion piece on what appears to an advocacy organization website; the second is to an offhand comment from a blog of unknown reliability, and the third assertion is unsourced. If these are valid criticisms then there should be better sources for any and all. I also think it would be helpful for editors - particularly relatives of the article's subject - to lay out these observations in Talk pages rather than reverting with unenlightening edit summary comments. JohnInDC ( talk) 14:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Baron Dave. The article cited is criticism of Romm, not discussion of his "blog". It appears that the criticism of Romm on this issue got some press, and so it is notable to discuss it here. I contacted Dr. Romm, and he confirmed that it was an appropriate discussion. Ironically, the discussion of this criticism makes this article stronger, because it illustrates how Romm's critics take positions that are not credible and shows balance in the article. I think that experienced Wikipedia editors would confirm that this section is helpful in this article. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, done. Thanks for fixing the link. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, John. Of course you are right. However, see WP:BLP, which says "While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material." Romm was able to point me to a reference that is cited now in the Criticism section. WP:BLP has a lot of excellent information about how to proceed with this article with respect to the criticism section and other content. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As requested by SSilvers I have looked at the current and recent versions, and to my lay eye the present version looks well-balanced, properly giving both sides of the matter. (A European and non-technical viewpoint, but I hope it is of some use) Tim riley ( talk) 17:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The rebuttal in the criticism section merely references a blog entry by Romm. That's not really good enough. Please find another source. Steve0999
I don't think Romm is a scientist. He certainly isn't *now* and I don't see anything here to suggest he ever was. The article in Science [1] for example is policy, not science. His own blog says Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress. Joe is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton Administration. In December 2008, Romm was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for “distinguished service toward a sustainable energy future and for persuasive discourse on why citizens, corporations, and governments should adopt sustainable technologies.” Read what Wikipedia has to say about Joe. [2] William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, guys. Baron Dave, I have no problem calling Joe Romm a "blogger". His blog has become very notable in the energy efficiency and climate blogosphere. In the article, we clearly note that he is a PhD physicist who writes and speaks on science and science policy. It is not worthwhile arguing about whether he is a "scientist" - readers can draw their own conclusions, since the facts are stated. FYI, Connolley is a well-credentialed climate scientist who has worked extensively in the field, and he and Joe Romm are on the same side; so I would give Connolley's suggestion much consideration. Connolley is also a very frequent Wikipedia contributor and has done much to make sure that the coverage of climate science on Wikipedia is accurate. I welcome Connolley's (and other independent commenters') input on this article. By the way, William, I had checked, some time ago, to make sure that all of the articles listed under the PR heading were from peer-reviewed publications, but I could have made a mistake. If you know differently with respect to any of them, we can certainly move them out of the section. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
These changes look OK to me. Note, however, William, that the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas L. Friedman, writing in The New York Times today, calls Romm a "physicist". [5] -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It turns out that this is my fault. You are right - it was a report to the National Science Foundation and was not otherwise published. I've changed the the heading to "Selected journal articles and reports." Sorry for the confusion. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I tidied up the first line ("scientist" doesn't need to be in quotes if you have a source, and we have many), added the 60 Minutes appearance 4/27/09. Including the final NTSB report of the Bridge (in Crticism) seemed reasonable but hastily added on, so edited and rewrote the last section. However, I couldn't figure out where you had put the references. The last line (about 70,000 bridges) should be connected to the Guardian article just under the Notes section. Thanks. Baron Dave Romm ( talk) 14:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ssilvers: Hmm... I must not have saved. Hope this one took. I like my second attempt better anyway. Still, all the cites aren't in place. The concerns about the final NTSB report should be linked to the NPR article, the 70,000 bridges at risk is from the Guardian article and the 700 bridges with similar design flaws as noted by the FHWA is from the wiki article on the collapse. Do we need a cite for the 60 Minutes appearance? Please fix, as my wiki-fu is lacking. Thanks. Baron Dave Romm ( talk) 20:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any changes re "sci". Perhaps just as well. I've reverted the changes re the bridge: BDR, you have a WP:COI. You cannot revert anything controversial. You're welcome to persuade us on talk, but you can't do it yourself William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I added a cite for the 60 minutes appearance and have now moved the information further down. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Romm isn't a physicist. He certainly isn't now - he is an author and climate blogger. I don't see any evidence he once was, either. He has no peer-reviewed papers published on physics in any kind of recognised physics journal (and no, having a degree and doctorate in physics does not make you a physicist) William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Ahem. It's correct in the body ( Thomas L. Friedman wrote…), but not in the lede. It's controversial, which makes it a WP:BLP violation, unless a real reliable source can be found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Newsweek calls him a physicist here. So does The Washington Post here. And the Wall Street Journal here. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we can safely say, based on the numerous links provided by Ssilvers above, that Romm is a physicist. This looks like edit-warring to me. We work by concensus here, and I for one agree with Ssilvers. Jack1956 ( talk) 06:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Romm isn't a physicist. However, if Ss can find enough erroneous sources that say he is, and is determined to push unreality into wiki, the rules say he gets his way. this isn't good, but there is nothing to be done about it William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
So you're basically saying that Newsweek, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Thomas L. Friedman, Physics World, etc, are all wrong and you're right. Can you provide sources to support that? Ssilver has provided sources and that's how things work here. Jack1956 ( talk) 07:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Collecting all the cites above in one place:
-- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, "about the author" blurbs are often provided by the author. Romm is not a published journal author on climate, he is no more a 'climate expert' than Freeman Dyson is a climate expert, less so in fact, as Freeman is published on nuclear winter.-- 173.79.138.229 ( talk) 02:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
A physicist is someone who does physics. Romm doesn't William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I note that Connolley has been critical of Romm on Connolley's blog, and that Romm dispute's Connolley's statement that Romm is not a physicist. See this. Connolley and Romm also have an outstanding bet about the progress of ice melting due to climate change. See here. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to insinuate anything. I am just pointing out that Connolley knows Romm and is critical of him, and so I think that clouds his judgment on this issue. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Copying from above discussion for convenience and adding a few new ones. Please try to discuss in chronological order, so it is easier to follow the discussion, instead of just sticking comments into the previous discussions:
New ones:
Read WP:RS, and you will see that these national magazines and new sources qualify under Wikipedia's definitions of reliable sources. A consensus was reached for this language several times. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Section suggestion: addition of controversy/conflict of approach to global warming between Bill McKibben of 350.org and Mr. Romm ... 99.37.85.89 ( talk) 20:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
William is right that the posting about the C02 concentration was written and posted by Romm. However, it does not belong in the section on journal articles. Indeed, Romm writes and posts numerous entries to his blog every day, and I see no reason to single this one out. In fact, I think Romm has written more recent postings on the same subject. The article generally does not mention publications unless they were published outside the blog by a well-known publication. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if Joseph Romm's page should contain a section devoted to some of the criticism leveled at him? A google search of "Romm feeds quotes" leads to several blog posts critical of Romm from climate scientists (Pielke Jr's blog, for instance), some with few direct disagreements with Romm. This page currently sounds like a vanity piece, and I'm not surprised that it was written by someone very close to the subject. Injecting some references to Romm's controversial statements might make the page more balanced and neutral. best regards, Tmasser Tmasser ( talk) 06:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jezhotwells ( talk) 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: found fifteen, repaired for and tagged eleven. [9] Jezhotwells ( talk) 17:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
1. It is reasonably well written.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
3. It is broad in its coverage.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
5. It is stable.
6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
7. Overall:
I wonder why someone nominated this article for GA. I've done 99% of the work on it, and I had no ambitions to promote it to GA. This article is often the focus of attacks by climate change deniers, and bringing it to GA will just make it a juicier target. It seems unfair for someone to nominate the article who does not work on maintaining it. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I didn't say that GA is bad, I only feel that it is unfair to select an article that you have not worked on regularly for nomination, unless you plan to help maintain it over the long term. You say that "we are trying to improve articles", but nominating them does not improve them. I am very happy for anyone to help improve this article. So far, however, in the article's long history, no one has done any research to improve this article other than me. You should NOT "assume [that I] intend to complete the tasks at hand." This is exactly what is unfair here! However, I hope you do intend to help, as this article is periodically attacked by climate change deniers, and I would certainly welcome experienced editors to assist in improving the article and ensuring that all changes comply with WP:BLP and are based upon references that satisfy WP:RS. The only reason that the article has not been attacked lately is that its most recent attacker, User:FellGleaming, is currently topic banned. I expect that when his ban expires, he will be back here, because his MO is to try to degrade the articles of mainstream climate scientists and experts in order to introduce doubt throughout the encyclopedia that climate change is anthropogenic and to minimize the evidence that it is a grave threat. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, look. I disagree with your opinions and your methods. It seems rude to me to nominate without notifying the editor who has done all the work on the article and asking if that editor thinks the article is ready for nomination. And, as I said above, I don't see why you are lecturing me and calling me names. Nevertheless, you have nominated this article, and there is nothing I can do about it, so fine. Let's just work on improving the article. I'd appreciate if you would just focus on the article now. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not controversial for Romm to delete comments to his blog posts by commenters who wish to push climate change denial. It's Romm's blog, and bloggers often moderate comments to their blogs. If you want to write a "criticism" section for this article, do some research, find some WP:Reliable sources, and write something. Please see, in this regard, WP:BLP. My impression from the research that I have done is that criticism of Romm appears in some blogs, but not in reliable sources. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe SSilvers should disclose his close personal connection to Romm; there is a clear issue of WP:COI in this article, and the article viewpoint is severly biased. FellGleaming ( talk) 21:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
So... how to proceed? From my own personal experience I can attest that attempts at over-strict interpretation of the COI rules can be vexatious. Ss: suppose I was to propose that your COI was sufficiently serious that you should accept that you should not make any contentious edits here, but should restrict yourself to the talk page if you disliked a particular edit (just for the sake of symmetry I'd agree the same, though you would proably feel that doesn't help you much). Would you accept that? The problem I see here is that although you've said you're "a friend" you've said no more: if we need to establish the degree of COI you have, inevitably you're going to have to be more forthcoming and you might be unhappy with that William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Quoting from the WP policy on Conflict of Interest: "COI editing is strongly discouraged. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest."
Um. I'm not very convinced by this, but OTOH I can't recall anything terrible either. Is [14] the disputed crit section? If so, then I agree it shouldn't be in William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to this article, FG. I will certainly carefully review your new additions. I disagree, though, that any consensus ever agreed with you regarding this article. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I request that the COI tag be removed, because the article does not "require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what kind of brand you want to put on my breast. I believe that my editing on this article is fair and neutral, and also modestly believe that the article is pretty well-written and accurately describes Romm and his views. I would be happy to include a well-written, reliably-sourced criticism section, if someone can write one. I am also happy to periodically confirm here that I am a friend of Romm's, if that makes everyone feel better. You are not arbcom, and you cannot impose requirements. Let's focus on the content, eh? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The book comes out on Monday, April 19, so Island Press moved the link here. We could also use the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Straight-Up-Americas-Politicians-Solutions/dp/1597267163 here]. I'll fix the tense of the text once the book is already out. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Two minor points. In the Bibliography section, second para, Romm is quoted as using the word "modelled". Did the English publishers really Anglicise his spelling? (Shame on them if they did!) And I wonder about the section heading "Recognition". I wonder if "Reputation" or some such might be a more neutral heading. Tim riley ( talk) 21:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
AmericanProgress.org lists Romm among its Energy Policy experts, with "Area of Expertise: Climate Change" [15] - I have edited the page accordingly. mmorabito67 ( talk) 12:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Why would "climate" encompass "climate science, energy technologies and policy"? Possibly, you could argue that for "climate change" instead of "climate" [16], thereby making Romm a "climate change expert", exactly as defined by American Progress. Actually...is there any place apart from journalistic pieces where Romm is defined as "climate expert"? Especially, any place where he could control the exact text. For example Romm himself at ThinkProgress avoids completely the use of "climate expert" [17]. And the front flap of Hell and High Water (hardback) has him as "an expert in the science, business and politics of climate change". Once again, it's "climate change" and not just "climate". And if his employer uses it, and Romm uses it, of course we should use it too. If you prefer, we could just get the Hell and High Water text verbatim. mmorabito67 ( talk) 23:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I see that an earlier attempt to add criticism of Romm failed, because of RS problems (blog sources). I'll post a few non-blog articles here -- I don't follow Romm, and have no real knowledge of him, other than to observe his tendency to put his foot in his mouth pretty regularly.
-- and that's all I saw in the first nine pages, googling Criticism "Joe Romm" -blog Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Fell Gleaming has added a new criticism section. William, before I comment on this, do you want to deal with the items that have previously been discussed here? Also, I suggest that the section on Romm's view should go before the criticism section. That would seem more logical. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone besides William have a problem with the controversy section? His object to the sources clearly is inapplicable in this case. A source must be sufficient to back up the claim. If the claim is, "y is true", then an op ed piece has problems. But if the claim is "a person's opinion is y", then an opinion source written by the person himself saying "y" is not only sufficient verification, its the golden standard. FellGleaming ( talk) 21:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that the Al Gore article can serve as a guide with respect to any proposed criticism section. Gore has critics of his environmental views, and that article shows how to cite major media in order to discuss criticism of the subject's views, and also how to describe the subject's responses to that criticism. Certainly Romm has strong views, and he has been criticized by, and has criticized, bloggers with other views; and Romm has often answered his critics on his blog. I don't think it's notable to give the he said/she said debates between Romm and other blog writers which, after all, is just the debate between those who believe AGW must be combatted with immediate action and those who disagree with that. Otherwise Gore's article would have a list of criticisms of his views, which it does not. But there was some major media reporting, I think, on Romm's criticism of the global warming chapter of the book Superfreakonomics, the authors' responses, and Romm's responses to them. Romm himself is not very controversial: he practices what he preaches. For example, he long ago installed solar panels on his home and drives a Prius. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
It's futile. Back in 2005 I added a criticism section to the article that was promptly deleted by ssilvers (who as you know was best man at Romm's wedding). Romm's book on hydrogen was given a very negative review by Dan Sperling who is a member of the California Air Resources Board. [See Ogden, Joan, D. Sperling, and Anthony Eggert. “Is there hope for hydrogen?” Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 82, no. 41, pp. 48-49, October 2004] Later that same magazine printed a point-counterpoint with Romm and the principal deputy assistant secretary at Dept of Energy, the person in charge of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs there, that noted "Romm exaggerates." Roger Pielke, Jr. a professor at CU (that's Univeristy of Colorado at Boulder, in case you are a lawyer and didn't know) has written articles critical of Romm's quote feeding tactics. And it goes on . . . . -- PotomacFever ( talk) 17:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I would note here that Fellgleaming just wrote at Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_United_States that J J Romm "is not a scientist", but a policy wonk, and removed his name from the entry because of this opinion. Statements such as these by editors are one of the worst features of WP. If a person that earned a Ph.D in physics from MIT, and also held high positions at the U.S. DOE, one of the world's most advanced R&D agencies, cannot occasionally be termed a "scientist" on WP, then who can? And it's funny then that this WP editor won't disclose their own "qualifications" to screw around with perfectly good science entries (and more importantly, this editor's lack of tack should be well-known by now). So Fellgleaming, do you hug test tubes or run NMR every day and does that make U a scientist? is that what a "scientist" is? Was Albert E. not a "scientist" either, as he only sat in an office at princeton and smoked a pipe for 30 years, and did only thought experiments and some math? How silly. Jack B108 ( talk) 03:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
As we've discussed several times before on this page, William's opinion on this subject is contradicted by the following evidence:
Here are some publications and organizations that call Romm a "physicist":
There are thousands of google hits on Romm and the words scientist, physicist, climate expert, energy expert, etc. because Romm is a leading expert, invited many times to testify before the Congressional committees on science and technology and author of the book ( Hell and High Water) that explains to lay readers the effects of global warming based on Romm's review of the scientific literature, which is extensively footnoted in the book. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The article doesn't establish why the author is notable Wikipedia notability criteria. Alot of people can claim they've written a few books and have been a PI on a Federal grant.-- PotomacFever 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize that Wikipedia had stooped to allowing self-published resumes to be published. Amazing. There's not one item of significance about any of the controversies he might have been involved in (beyond the relatively trivial one about the Minneapolis bridge collapse), and nothing that discusses how his ideas may not have always been correct or verified. (I'm currently preparing a policy paper for an major environmental group, and I was checking this site to see if a citation was worth using. It turns out he doesn't have the expertise in the area that he's being cited for so I'm not going to use the reference.)
It is correct to discuss a person's most important and notable works both in the body of the narrative biography section and in a list of works or publications. Please see Bernard Williams, which is a Featured Article, for an excellent example of a biography article where this is done. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Not other editors, just one. All editors except PotomcFever found the article highly notable. Read the discussion. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 01:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a trememdous amount of such material in this article that has no place in an encyclopedia entry, such as what Romm's brother does for a living, entire paragraphs on projects he mere "assisted with" at the US DOE, and unverifiable peacock phrases like "world's leading expert". I have tried to remove the most egregious of these, over the objections of a POV-pushing editor.
Additionally, the namecalling and Meat Puppetry by user:Ssilvers, as well his misuse of terms such as vandalism for edits which are clearly not is an abuse of Wikipedia policy. I urge him to moderate his actions and work with other editors to make this a better entry. FellGleaming ( talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think removing it was the right thing to do ( diff here) - the first cited reference is to a rather sarcastic opinion piece on what appears to an advocacy organization website; the second is to an offhand comment from a blog of unknown reliability, and the third assertion is unsourced. If these are valid criticisms then there should be better sources for any and all. I also think it would be helpful for editors - particularly relatives of the article's subject - to lay out these observations in Talk pages rather than reverting with unenlightening edit summary comments. JohnInDC ( talk) 14:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Baron Dave. The article cited is criticism of Romm, not discussion of his "blog". It appears that the criticism of Romm on this issue got some press, and so it is notable to discuss it here. I contacted Dr. Romm, and he confirmed that it was an appropriate discussion. Ironically, the discussion of this criticism makes this article stronger, because it illustrates how Romm's critics take positions that are not credible and shows balance in the article. I think that experienced Wikipedia editors would confirm that this section is helpful in this article. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, done. Thanks for fixing the link. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, John. Of course you are right. However, see WP:BLP, which says "While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material." Romm was able to point me to a reference that is cited now in the Criticism section. WP:BLP has a lot of excellent information about how to proceed with this article with respect to the criticism section and other content. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As requested by SSilvers I have looked at the current and recent versions, and to my lay eye the present version looks well-balanced, properly giving both sides of the matter. (A European and non-technical viewpoint, but I hope it is of some use) Tim riley ( talk) 17:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The rebuttal in the criticism section merely references a blog entry by Romm. That's not really good enough. Please find another source. Steve0999
I don't think Romm is a scientist. He certainly isn't *now* and I don't see anything here to suggest he ever was. The article in Science [1] for example is policy, not science. His own blog says Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress. Joe is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton Administration. In December 2008, Romm was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for “distinguished service toward a sustainable energy future and for persuasive discourse on why citizens, corporations, and governments should adopt sustainable technologies.” Read what Wikipedia has to say about Joe. [2] William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, guys. Baron Dave, I have no problem calling Joe Romm a "blogger". His blog has become very notable in the energy efficiency and climate blogosphere. In the article, we clearly note that he is a PhD physicist who writes and speaks on science and science policy. It is not worthwhile arguing about whether he is a "scientist" - readers can draw their own conclusions, since the facts are stated. FYI, Connolley is a well-credentialed climate scientist who has worked extensively in the field, and he and Joe Romm are on the same side; so I would give Connolley's suggestion much consideration. Connolley is also a very frequent Wikipedia contributor and has done much to make sure that the coverage of climate science on Wikipedia is accurate. I welcome Connolley's (and other independent commenters') input on this article. By the way, William, I had checked, some time ago, to make sure that all of the articles listed under the PR heading were from peer-reviewed publications, but I could have made a mistake. If you know differently with respect to any of them, we can certainly move them out of the section. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
These changes look OK to me. Note, however, William, that the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas L. Friedman, writing in The New York Times today, calls Romm a "physicist". [5] -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It turns out that this is my fault. You are right - it was a report to the National Science Foundation and was not otherwise published. I've changed the the heading to "Selected journal articles and reports." Sorry for the confusion. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I tidied up the first line ("scientist" doesn't need to be in quotes if you have a source, and we have many), added the 60 Minutes appearance 4/27/09. Including the final NTSB report of the Bridge (in Crticism) seemed reasonable but hastily added on, so edited and rewrote the last section. However, I couldn't figure out where you had put the references. The last line (about 70,000 bridges) should be connected to the Guardian article just under the Notes section. Thanks. Baron Dave Romm ( talk) 14:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ssilvers: Hmm... I must not have saved. Hope this one took. I like my second attempt better anyway. Still, all the cites aren't in place. The concerns about the final NTSB report should be linked to the NPR article, the 70,000 bridges at risk is from the Guardian article and the 700 bridges with similar design flaws as noted by the FHWA is from the wiki article on the collapse. Do we need a cite for the 60 Minutes appearance? Please fix, as my wiki-fu is lacking. Thanks. Baron Dave Romm ( talk) 20:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any changes re "sci". Perhaps just as well. I've reverted the changes re the bridge: BDR, you have a WP:COI. You cannot revert anything controversial. You're welcome to persuade us on talk, but you can't do it yourself William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I added a cite for the 60 minutes appearance and have now moved the information further down. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Romm isn't a physicist. He certainly isn't now - he is an author and climate blogger. I don't see any evidence he once was, either. He has no peer-reviewed papers published on physics in any kind of recognised physics journal (and no, having a degree and doctorate in physics does not make you a physicist) William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Ahem. It's correct in the body ( Thomas L. Friedman wrote…), but not in the lede. It's controversial, which makes it a WP:BLP violation, unless a real reliable source can be found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Newsweek calls him a physicist here. So does The Washington Post here. And the Wall Street Journal here. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we can safely say, based on the numerous links provided by Ssilvers above, that Romm is a physicist. This looks like edit-warring to me. We work by concensus here, and I for one agree with Ssilvers. Jack1956 ( talk) 06:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Romm isn't a physicist. However, if Ss can find enough erroneous sources that say he is, and is determined to push unreality into wiki, the rules say he gets his way. this isn't good, but there is nothing to be done about it William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
So you're basically saying that Newsweek, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Thomas L. Friedman, Physics World, etc, are all wrong and you're right. Can you provide sources to support that? Ssilver has provided sources and that's how things work here. Jack1956 ( talk) 07:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Collecting all the cites above in one place:
-- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, "about the author" blurbs are often provided by the author. Romm is not a published journal author on climate, he is no more a 'climate expert' than Freeman Dyson is a climate expert, less so in fact, as Freeman is published on nuclear winter.-- 173.79.138.229 ( talk) 02:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
A physicist is someone who does physics. Romm doesn't William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I note that Connolley has been critical of Romm on Connolley's blog, and that Romm dispute's Connolley's statement that Romm is not a physicist. See this. Connolley and Romm also have an outstanding bet about the progress of ice melting due to climate change. See here. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to insinuate anything. I am just pointing out that Connolley knows Romm and is critical of him, and so I think that clouds his judgment on this issue. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Copying from above discussion for convenience and adding a few new ones. Please try to discuss in chronological order, so it is easier to follow the discussion, instead of just sticking comments into the previous discussions:
New ones:
Read WP:RS, and you will see that these national magazines and new sources qualify under Wikipedia's definitions of reliable sources. A consensus was reached for this language several times. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Section suggestion: addition of controversy/conflict of approach to global warming between Bill McKibben of 350.org and Mr. Romm ... 99.37.85.89 ( talk) 20:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
William is right that the posting about the C02 concentration was written and posted by Romm. However, it does not belong in the section on journal articles. Indeed, Romm writes and posts numerous entries to his blog every day, and I see no reason to single this one out. In fact, I think Romm has written more recent postings on the same subject. The article generally does not mention publications unless they were published outside the blog by a well-known publication. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if Joseph Romm's page should contain a section devoted to some of the criticism leveled at him? A google search of "Romm feeds quotes" leads to several blog posts critical of Romm from climate scientists (Pielke Jr's blog, for instance), some with few direct disagreements with Romm. This page currently sounds like a vanity piece, and I'm not surprised that it was written by someone very close to the subject. Injecting some references to Romm's controversial statements might make the page more balanced and neutral. best regards, Tmasser Tmasser ( talk) 06:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jezhotwells ( talk) 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: found fifteen, repaired for and tagged eleven. [9] Jezhotwells ( talk) 17:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
1. It is reasonably well written.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
3. It is broad in its coverage.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
5. It is stable.
6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
7. Overall:
I wonder why someone nominated this article for GA. I've done 99% of the work on it, and I had no ambitions to promote it to GA. This article is often the focus of attacks by climate change deniers, and bringing it to GA will just make it a juicier target. It seems unfair for someone to nominate the article who does not work on maintaining it. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I didn't say that GA is bad, I only feel that it is unfair to select an article that you have not worked on regularly for nomination, unless you plan to help maintain it over the long term. You say that "we are trying to improve articles", but nominating them does not improve them. I am very happy for anyone to help improve this article. So far, however, in the article's long history, no one has done any research to improve this article other than me. You should NOT "assume [that I] intend to complete the tasks at hand." This is exactly what is unfair here! However, I hope you do intend to help, as this article is periodically attacked by climate change deniers, and I would certainly welcome experienced editors to assist in improving the article and ensuring that all changes comply with WP:BLP and are based upon references that satisfy WP:RS. The only reason that the article has not been attacked lately is that its most recent attacker, User:FellGleaming, is currently topic banned. I expect that when his ban expires, he will be back here, because his MO is to try to degrade the articles of mainstream climate scientists and experts in order to introduce doubt throughout the encyclopedia that climate change is anthropogenic and to minimize the evidence that it is a grave threat. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, look. I disagree with your opinions and your methods. It seems rude to me to nominate without notifying the editor who has done all the work on the article and asking if that editor thinks the article is ready for nomination. And, as I said above, I don't see why you are lecturing me and calling me names. Nevertheless, you have nominated this article, and there is nothing I can do about it, so fine. Let's just work on improving the article. I'd appreciate if you would just focus on the article now. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not controversial for Romm to delete comments to his blog posts by commenters who wish to push climate change denial. It's Romm's blog, and bloggers often moderate comments to their blogs. If you want to write a "criticism" section for this article, do some research, find some WP:Reliable sources, and write something. Please see, in this regard, WP:BLP. My impression from the research that I have done is that criticism of Romm appears in some blogs, but not in reliable sources. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe SSilvers should disclose his close personal connection to Romm; there is a clear issue of WP:COI in this article, and the article viewpoint is severly biased. FellGleaming ( talk) 21:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
So... how to proceed? From my own personal experience I can attest that attempts at over-strict interpretation of the COI rules can be vexatious. Ss: suppose I was to propose that your COI was sufficiently serious that you should accept that you should not make any contentious edits here, but should restrict yourself to the talk page if you disliked a particular edit (just for the sake of symmetry I'd agree the same, though you would proably feel that doesn't help you much). Would you accept that? The problem I see here is that although you've said you're "a friend" you've said no more: if we need to establish the degree of COI you have, inevitably you're going to have to be more forthcoming and you might be unhappy with that William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Quoting from the WP policy on Conflict of Interest: "COI editing is strongly discouraged. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest."
Um. I'm not very convinced by this, but OTOH I can't recall anything terrible either. Is [14] the disputed crit section? If so, then I agree it shouldn't be in William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to this article, FG. I will certainly carefully review your new additions. I disagree, though, that any consensus ever agreed with you regarding this article. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I request that the COI tag be removed, because the article does not "require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what kind of brand you want to put on my breast. I believe that my editing on this article is fair and neutral, and also modestly believe that the article is pretty well-written and accurately describes Romm and his views. I would be happy to include a well-written, reliably-sourced criticism section, if someone can write one. I am also happy to periodically confirm here that I am a friend of Romm's, if that makes everyone feel better. You are not arbcom, and you cannot impose requirements. Let's focus on the content, eh? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The book comes out on Monday, April 19, so Island Press moved the link here. We could also use the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Straight-Up-Americas-Politicians-Solutions/dp/1597267163 here]. I'll fix the tense of the text once the book is already out. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Two minor points. In the Bibliography section, second para, Romm is quoted as using the word "modelled". Did the English publishers really Anglicise his spelling? (Shame on them if they did!) And I wonder about the section heading "Recognition". I wonder if "Reputation" or some such might be a more neutral heading. Tim riley ( talk) 21:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
AmericanProgress.org lists Romm among its Energy Policy experts, with "Area of Expertise: Climate Change" [15] - I have edited the page accordingly. mmorabito67 ( talk) 12:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Why would "climate" encompass "climate science, energy technologies and policy"? Possibly, you could argue that for "climate change" instead of "climate" [16], thereby making Romm a "climate change expert", exactly as defined by American Progress. Actually...is there any place apart from journalistic pieces where Romm is defined as "climate expert"? Especially, any place where he could control the exact text. For example Romm himself at ThinkProgress avoids completely the use of "climate expert" [17]. And the front flap of Hell and High Water (hardback) has him as "an expert in the science, business and politics of climate change". Once again, it's "climate change" and not just "climate". And if his employer uses it, and Romm uses it, of course we should use it too. If you prefer, we could just get the Hell and High Water text verbatim. mmorabito67 ( talk) 23:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I see that an earlier attempt to add criticism of Romm failed, because of RS problems (blog sources). I'll post a few non-blog articles here -- I don't follow Romm, and have no real knowledge of him, other than to observe his tendency to put his foot in his mouth pretty regularly.
-- and that's all I saw in the first nine pages, googling Criticism "Joe Romm" -blog Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Fell Gleaming has added a new criticism section. William, before I comment on this, do you want to deal with the items that have previously been discussed here? Also, I suggest that the section on Romm's view should go before the criticism section. That would seem more logical. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone besides William have a problem with the controversy section? His object to the sources clearly is inapplicable in this case. A source must be sufficient to back up the claim. If the claim is, "y is true", then an op ed piece has problems. But if the claim is "a person's opinion is y", then an opinion source written by the person himself saying "y" is not only sufficient verification, its the golden standard. FellGleaming ( talk) 21:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that the Al Gore article can serve as a guide with respect to any proposed criticism section. Gore has critics of his environmental views, and that article shows how to cite major media in order to discuss criticism of the subject's views, and also how to describe the subject's responses to that criticism. Certainly Romm has strong views, and he has been criticized by, and has criticized, bloggers with other views; and Romm has often answered his critics on his blog. I don't think it's notable to give the he said/she said debates between Romm and other blog writers which, after all, is just the debate between those who believe AGW must be combatted with immediate action and those who disagree with that. Otherwise Gore's article would have a list of criticisms of his views, which it does not. But there was some major media reporting, I think, on Romm's criticism of the global warming chapter of the book Superfreakonomics, the authors' responses, and Romm's responses to them. Romm himself is not very controversial: he practices what he preaches. For example, he long ago installed solar panels on his home and drives a Prius. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
It's futile. Back in 2005 I added a criticism section to the article that was promptly deleted by ssilvers (who as you know was best man at Romm's wedding). Romm's book on hydrogen was given a very negative review by Dan Sperling who is a member of the California Air Resources Board. [See Ogden, Joan, D. Sperling, and Anthony Eggert. “Is there hope for hydrogen?” Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 82, no. 41, pp. 48-49, October 2004] Later that same magazine printed a point-counterpoint with Romm and the principal deputy assistant secretary at Dept of Energy, the person in charge of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs there, that noted "Romm exaggerates." Roger Pielke, Jr. a professor at CU (that's Univeristy of Colorado at Boulder, in case you are a lawyer and didn't know) has written articles critical of Romm's quote feeding tactics. And it goes on . . . . -- PotomacFever ( talk) 17:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I would note here that Fellgleaming just wrote at Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_United_States that J J Romm "is not a scientist", but a policy wonk, and removed his name from the entry because of this opinion. Statements such as these by editors are one of the worst features of WP. If a person that earned a Ph.D in physics from MIT, and also held high positions at the U.S. DOE, one of the world's most advanced R&D agencies, cannot occasionally be termed a "scientist" on WP, then who can? And it's funny then that this WP editor won't disclose their own "qualifications" to screw around with perfectly good science entries (and more importantly, this editor's lack of tack should be well-known by now). So Fellgleaming, do you hug test tubes or run NMR every day and does that make U a scientist? is that what a "scientist" is? Was Albert E. not a "scientist" either, as he only sat in an office at princeton and smoked a pipe for 30 years, and did only thought experiments and some math? How silly. Jack B108 ( talk) 03:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
As we've discussed several times before on this page, William's opinion on this subject is contradicted by the following evidence:
Here are some publications and organizations that call Romm a "physicist":
There are thousands of google hits on Romm and the words scientist, physicist, climate expert, energy expert, etc. because Romm is a leading expert, invited many times to testify before the Congressional committees on science and technology and author of the book ( Hell and High Water) that explains to lay readers the effects of global warming based on Romm's review of the scientific literature, which is extensively footnoted in the book. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)