Talk:Lawrence Solomon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Lawrence Solomon, has edited Wikipedia as
Lawrence_Solomon (talk · contribs)

Contents

[edit] Notability

Please, do a google search on his name. Check out the WashTimes article which calls him the "heralded Canadian environmentalist". Mhym (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. Could you please provide references to substantial coverage by reliable sources that is specifically about him, not his book? Sandstein (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, the CSPAN presentation, the interviews with the Spectator and National Review were made by Solomon, not his book. This is all open for interpretation. For example, let us ask whether Einstein is notable if not for relativity theory? The point is - people are notable for what they produce. Mhym (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I mean coverage about him, not media content by him. Is there any? Sandstein (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. I listed some in the external links and references. I am sure there are more, maybe a dozen or two if you don't count bloggers (and why not?), but he is obviously not Karl Rove, so I doubt there are hundreds of articles on him. I personally am an inclusionist, so I think with his latest CSPAN appearance, book reviews and other interviews he is clearly notable as a global warming denier. But I do understand if people are doubtful. Somebody down the road will surely put this page up for deletion. (it was actually speedy deleted once for copyvio). My main concern is that so many people despise what says about WP and global warming, they could be biased. Mhym (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Wikipedia?

Ok, so he wrote one anti-Wikipedia piece. Do we have any evidence that he is known for his criticism of Wikipedia as the article claims? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am actually not sure. He wrote at least two (see refs) and talked about it at length on CSPAN. I found a bunch of blogs, etc. quoting his anti-WP articles, but I don't think I want to push this point too much though. Feel free to reword this. Mhym (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure it bears mention in the article at all though. I mean we don't have anything like a source calling him a critic of Wikipedia. And people are interviewed on CSPAN all the freaking time. Saying he's known for it is at minimum likely original research. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That sound right. I would still mention his criticism, as it is quoted in a bunch of other sources, but would separate it from the "best known" sentence. Mhym (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
"bunch of other sources"... as in reliable sources?
—Apis (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, CSPAN is one. (I don't have the tape ATM, but could probably get it) ffm 16:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refs wanted

I asked for a ref and Mhyn kindly provided one [1] but I don't think its good enough. It needs to be written by someone other than LS! LS looks to me like a blogger with a small right-wing pro-coal astroturf group Energy Probe. Notability is severely doubtful. I've peppered it with a few more cn's. I do *not* put it forward as a reliable source, but for interest I refer you to http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/06/who_is_lawrence_solomon_and_wh.php William M. Connolley (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I added a link to his complete list of articles which include the date of publication, etc. I think given this detailed info anyone with Lexis Nexis (not me) can verify that. I think WP typically admit such careful sources as reliable, since if they are fraudulent ALL of this is false and that's easy to check. As for whether he is a blogger, I don't care either way and I don't think WP should. Say, Andrew Sullivan is also a blogger but his notability is not a question due to his other appearances. In my opinion, Solomon's exposure in print makes him notable as a global warming critic. There aren't many of them around anyway, and he seems prominent enough, given all those interviews in the MSM. So I say let's keep him. Mhym (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think an author's list of articles on his blog is good enough. There has to be a degree of external certification. If he is a non notable guy trying to attract attention what has he got to lose? The ones I have looked at seem to be rather unprofessional in tone. --BozMo talk 13:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You can't use refs form his own blog and his own website, if anyone challenges them. You added http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/columnists/LawrenceSolomon.html for being assoc with Carter; but thats just his std puff-bio. We can tell thats its not a RS, because it contains the assertion that he is "one of Canada's leading environmentalists" - at least, I assume you're not proposing that we include that in the article? As to the NYRoB, well, I've found it: in 1985 he had a letter published [2], to which the original author replied "I am baffled my Mr. Solomon's reaction to my review...". So I think that "he has published in..." is really rather misleading. We could write "In 1985 he once had a letter published in..." but I think that sounds a bit desperate, no? Doesn't this sound just a little bit as though LS is struggling to find something to put in his bio? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, 1986 [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if this sarcastic tone is useful ("I assume you are not proposing..."). Also, I think you are confusing me with a promoter of him and his views, whatever they are. I am totally neutral and committed to NPOV. If you feel the WSJ and NYRoB are unrelated to his work, feel free to remove them. If you and others feel him running the coffee shop is as notable as his books and articles, I guess there is little I can do. Mhym (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The coffee shop is related to his work; it appears to have been explicitly founded to support Energy Probe, and shares a phone number and address with the organization. Based on his removal comment, William Connolley's objection to the WSJ article's inclusion was the lack of a cite. Since I tracked one down, I re-added the WSJ cite. Smptq (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: coffee shop. As stated in the article it's completely unclear as to to why it is notable and on the same order as "in 1997 LS moved from one house to another". Whether the coffee shop is truly related or not, the way you just stated your case, it looks like OR and thus inappropriate. Please remove or justify. Mhym (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
http://coffeegeek.com/resources/pressreleases/greenbeanery2004sept15 says: "Green Beanery's profits support the activities of Probe International" http://www.greenbeanery.ca/bean/ says "The staff are environmentalists as well as coffee lovers, part of the team at one of Canada's largest federally registered charities: Energy Probe Research Foundation and its Probe International division" which indicates that they're in fact all the same people. They're pretty open about the Green Beanery being a part of Energy Probe, and about the purpose of the Green Beanery being to support Energy Probe. That the address and phone number are the same a trivial fact to check, and not exactly research. Smptq (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. What I am saying is that either you should include something like "LS runs a coffee shop which supports the Energy Probe" or whatever complying with NOR, or remove the sentence. Otherwise it looks like a loose end - clearly LS is not famous for that coffee shop whose review was published in an obscure news source. Mhym (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I've done as you suggested. If you think that mentioning that Energy Probe, Probe International, and the coffee shop all share the same phone number and address is inappropriate, feel free to remove it. Smptq (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

M: if you're now agreed that refs from his own website aren't good enough, then good. No sarcasm was intended. Re the coffee shop: its about the only verifiable thing about him. Yes I think its notable; no I think it has very little to do with his writing and doesn't need to have. Re: [4] the point is that its become clear that EP is almost undoubtedly some tiny organisation run out of his coffeeshop pic trying to look bigger than it really is via its website. But I agree we have no reliable evidence for that William M. Connolley (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me put it this way. I do think we have insufficient evidence for the "Carter's Task Force". This "adviser" role is pretty unverifiable. Upon some thinking I would remove this sentence. If LS has real evidence of that he really should put it on his website. I would also remove the WSJ single article title - the way it is just mocking him for no reason. As for the Globe and Mail and other articles he wrote - I would trust LS on this. This is all easily verifiable and LS must be really silly to invent that kind of thing. Mhym (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Lawrence Solomon just edited the wiki article about himself. He seems to be proud of the WSJ article, though I can't find any evidence that it was widely cited. He might once have been syndicated by Toronto Star Syndication (for which we'll need a reference), but seems unaware that the company has changed names to Torstar Syndication. The current Torstar Syndication list of available columnists does not include Lawrence Solomon. http://www.tsscontent.ca/comics/content__1/print_content —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smptq (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I hate when this happens. I didn't create this WP article to LS can put here his resume. I will edit this out. I already gone through this with [5]. This "edit your own page" activity never does anyone any good. Mhym (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still looking for evidence that he was a syndicated columnist for Toronto Star Syndication; so far, all I can find is a single article. [6] Smptq (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a fairly extensive discussion of the of Energy Probe in particular, Lawrence Solomon's views and involvement with the group in Cloak of Green: The Links Between Key Environmental Groups, Government and Big Business starting on page 358. Smptq (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit more of a skim through the book leads me to believe that the author is out to find a corporate-environmentalist conspiracy to install a world government. Facts about Solomon and Energy Probe may be accurate, but we probably need to find some other source to cite for them. Smptq (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
That's quite possible. It's also a bit amusing that LS is viewed by some MSM as the leader in this quest (more credentials would be useful). Nevertheless, I say we should leave this page as is until further evidence (i.e. without OR) is brought to light. As is stands now, the page appears unbiased and for all we know reflect the facts. Other WP pages seem more important than this one. Mhym (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I cut the syndicated bit, on the grounds that there is no evidence. Perhaps it will appear later. In some doubt, I left the since WSJ article, though it looks a bit silly. Should it be cut? Don't know. I hacked the bit about success from the beanery - its similarly unverified. I left "Canadas largest" because I don't care.

I added dates for some books. One appears to be Earthscan, not Doubleday William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're the second person telling me that the WSJ article cite is a bit funny. After a bit of thought, I'm inclined to cut mention of it. One more thing turned up. He gave an interview to DesmogBlog, and described his motive for writing The Deniers to them: "he has spent most of his adult life as a self-styled environmentalist, campaigning against nuclear energy and against the ravages of big hydro electric projects" [7]. Is this worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smptq (talk • contribs) 01:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Task Force on the Global Environment

From what I can tell, Jimmy Carter did not have a "Task Force on the Global Environment" he had a "Task Force on Global Resources and Environment" [8]

I do not have any cite to indicate who was an adviser to this task force. Smptq (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon edited the article to state that "He was an adviser (1979-80) to President Jimmy Carter's Task Force on Global Resources and the Environment (popularly known as the "Global 2000" report". I tracked down a copy of the report online. Volume 1: http://www.ourtask.org/Pub_files/G2000_Vol_One.pdf Volume 2: http://www.ourtask.org/Pub_files/G2000_Vol_Two.pdf Whatever Lawrence Solomon's contributions might have been to the report, they were insufficient to merit a mention in the long list of names in Volume 2 which begins on page x (11 in pdf numbering). I think that we should defer to the author's of the report, and follow their lead by not mentioning Lawrence Solomon's involvement. Smptq (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Probe vs. Canada

Energy Probe vs. Canada is a lawsuit which seems to get cited occasionally as a precedent in Canadian court cases.

There's a detailed write-up starting on page 23 at http://www.nea.fr/html/law/nlb/NLB-54-EN.pdf

I've got two questions before we can actually write anything: 1) Was the Energy Probe in the lawsuit the same as Lawrence Solomon's Energy Probe Research Foundation? 2) To what extent, if any, was Lawrence Solomon involved?

Smptq (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. As I read the write-up, the judge told them to get stuffed and awarded costs against them. He doesn't quite say the whole thing was frivolous, but its not far off. That doc says there was an appeal... any hint if it occurred? However, there is no evidence that LS was involved in any of this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're willing to trust facts from Cloak of Green (as opposed to the author's interpretations) Lawrence Solomon is married to Patricia Adams, and the two were running Energy Probe at the time. Since the lawsuit was being funded (at least in part) by the City of Toronto, the Toronto Star covered the lawsuit.[9][10] I haven't looked at anything except the free teasers, but there is one which suggests that the city wasn't willing to pay for an appeal. [11] Smptq (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Cloak of Green"

Is a book. It says things about Solomon. [12]. For example, that he was born in 1948 in Bucharest. Does this count as a RS, do you think? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Complicated answer. The author of the book is very clearly pushing a conspiracy theory, which leads me towards regarding her as a fringe source. HOWEVER, she seems to have actually interviewed LS, people who know him, examined documentation, and tried to verify statements. For example, she didn't trust Solomon's statement that he was an adviser to Carter's task force on global resources and the environment, and appears to have fact checked it. (See page 359, which is on Amazon, but not Google) The couple places I've fact-checked her on Solomon-related activities, Cloak of Green has turned out to be accurate. When it comes to verifiable facts about LS, Energy Probe, and Probe International, Cloak of Green appears to be reliable, even if the interpretations of those facts are fringe. Smptq (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the date and place of birth can be trusted. I added these bits. Mhym (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The Globe and Mail published an obituary of his Robert Adams (the father of Patricia Adams) which describes Lawrence Solomon as a son-in-law of Robert Adams. I think this confirms the Cloak of Green claim that Patrica Adams and Lawrence Solomon are married. [13]. Since she seems to be a co-author on some works, and appears to be one of those running Energy Probe, she is probably worth a mention of some sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smptq (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)