Talk:Michael Shellenberger/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Michael Shellenberger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090110172149/http://www.wired.com:80/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/mf_burning?currentPage=all to http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/mf_burning?currentPage=all
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131104152024/http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/mf_burning?currentPage=all to http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/mf_burning?currentPage=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Shellenberger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130111021020/http://hlpronline.com/print/volume-2-1/ to http://hlpronline.com/print/volume-2-1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130309053711/http://www.democracyjournal.org/9/6616.php?page=all to http://www.democracyjournal.org/9/6616.php?page=all
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/05/27/gelobter-soul/index1.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

Someone came in a did a highly unbalanced and POV criticism section based on blog posts critical of Nordhaus and Schellenberger. I corrected it with a section that contains praise and criticism in equal measure. Both the criticism and praise should be from mainstream media outlets and national environmental leaders and focused on their key writings and not get drawn into an on-going blog war.SunshineMeadows2012 (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC) — SunshineMeadows2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Response to the above text from "SunshineMeadows2012":

1. "praise and criticism in equal measure" This is a common foil to promote falsehoods and distorted views. If a statement is accurate, then a contrary falsehood should not be granted equal credence.

2. "Both the criticism and praise should be from mainstream media outlets ..." Mainstream media outlets, especially in the US, are notorious for promoting falsehoods, misinformation, and disinformation (to the extent that they even discuss important topics in public affairs at all).

---Dagme (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi SunshineMeadows2012, that "someone" would be me, an editor with almost 1500 edits and 7+ years experience on Wikipedia. In fact, wikipedia policy allows the use of opinionated news sources with restrictions as detailed in Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. In this case, I cited an Alternet writer that quoted Bill McKibben, and attributed the quote to Mr. McKibben. As one of the most cited environmentalists, I think everyone would agree Mr. McKibben has standing enough to criticize Mr. Shellenberger. I also think that most people would agree that Alternet has reliable enough fact checking to assert that this is, in fact, a quote by Mr. McKibben. Alternet is not a "blog", as you asserted, and does have editorial controls. Also, Mr. McKibben has made similar comments elsewhere about Mr. Shellenberger, so this is not an out-of-character comment for him or a selective quote. And though ThinkProgress is also an opinionated news source, this is simply where Joseph Romm chose to publish his writing. My quoting of the article named Joseph Romm and his qualifications, rather than writing something like "ThinkProgress said", the latter of which would have been unacceptable.

When I first read the article, all I saw was glowing coverage, and it needed some critical balance. Like a slew of negative reviews on a bad movie, a "Criticism" section does not need to be balanced between praise and criticism if, in fact, there is more criticism than praise in the real world. From what I can tell, Mr. Schellenberger's writing has been received in a mixed to negative way by basically everyone including mainstream environmentalists, and this is what I wrote in the lede of the paragraph. These comments are not from right-wing think tanks, which are non-notable because they generally criticize every environmentalist. What makes this criticism notable is that it's from other environmentalists, which is rather uncommon. I think a fair representation of Mr. Shellenberger is that both conservatives and liberals don't like his writing. Far from being POV pushing on my part, this is actually co-author's Nordhaus' self-stated goal with the book: "If this book doesn't piss off a whole lot of conservatives and a whole lot of liberals, we've failed". (quote from the Wired article you cited). They expect their writing to be controversial, and to not cover the resulting criticism would be a disservice to both the authors and Wikipedia readers.

Also, I'm sorry to say I have a difficult time assuming that you are editing this article in good faith. In the Wired article titled "Two Environmentalists Anger Their Brethren", you managed to pick a single quote, "[his book] could be the best thing to happen to environmentalism since Rachel Carson's Silent Spring",(diff) which seems like a highly selective positive quote in an article mostly about conflicts. In fact, in the 8 months since you registered, 88% of your Wikipedia edits (39 of 44) are to Mr. Schellenberger's article, some of which are removing negative material, and none of which add negative material according to a quick review, which I believe qualifies your account as a single purpose account. Please try to make sure you are editing in a unbiased fashion. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of article changes and points of view on climate change is the reason I stopped going to Wiki as my first reference source. That and an article on Kennedy's disease that the author knew nothing about but refused to accept input. Of course the entire climate change field is full of bias and lacking counterbalance. The COP process is aimed at creating a gravy train of money flowing to the less developed countries. There is massive problem of reproducibility and yes accountability in the published papers in this field. Danleywolfe (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Updated

I updated the page to reflect more recent work, and to be consistent with page of co-author Ted Nordhaus.CindyMeyers (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This sentence, "Nordhaus and Shellenberger were labeled "bad boys of environmentalism" by Bill McKibben and journalists and bloggers accepted that label without assessing their environmental credentials or their funding." includes an unsubstantiated innuendo and should be considered POV. I deleted it consistent with wikipedia policy. SunshineMeadows2012 (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

These sentences are not about Schellenberger but about his essay and I so I deleted them. If the contributor wants to add them to the page on death of environmentalism then s/he should do that. "Their language about environmentalism's death reverberated during that election year. After the 2004 presidential re-election of George W. Bush, Adam Werbach made a speech at San Francisco's Commonwealth club related to the notion of the "Death of Environmentalism," providing an "autopsy" of the environmental movement in the context of John Kerry's defeat."

Here is more POV criticism of Schellenberger by an anonymous wikipedia contributor that I deleted consistent with wikipedia policy. "However, independent critics have focused on the book's seeming effort to use rhetoric to manipulate its audience, its co-optation of a number of arguments that environmental activists had made for decades, and its denigration of powerless U.S. environmental activists. Further, the authors' central argument about relationship between environmentalism and postmaterial values had been repudiated by the 2003 Global Environmental Survey, but they did not consult or deal with it in any meaningful way; most of their claims lack citation." Wikipedia contributors should keep POV to their private blogs and off Wikipedia. SunshineMeadows2012 (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

More POV that I deleted. "They released the paper digitally without peer review." This does not belong in an NPOV description. SunshineMeadows2012 (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Vanity

Does anyone else believe that this is vanity before I apply CSD A1 to this article? Sydney Know It Alltalk 05:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

An edit seems reasonable but not deletion. Seems to me that entry is fair considering amount of debate and controversy over Nordhaus/Schellenberger death of environmentalism thesis, and new book. Note that entries exist for authors like William McKibben and Michael Pollan. There is discussion there, too, over sourcing, but entries still exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FairPlay1 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

CSD A1 refers to lack of context. I'm not seeing anything about using CSD for vanity.66.28.54.254 (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)FairPlay1

Dear Sydney, I tried my best to write this as NPOV. However, if you think it needs an edit, please go for it. I hardly think it merits a CSD A1, however! That would seem fairly extreme. I'd say the entry meets Wiki standards of Bios of Living Persons, especially in the context of other authors represented on Wiki. GreenExpert (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Could use an NPOV edit, but also an edit for length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.1.213.162 (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Breakthrough Institute"? I recall back in the '70s, Omni magazine had a series of satirical interviews with "Grant Swinger," head of the "Breakthrough Institute" -- Swinger being a parody of the "entrepreneurial scientist." This page should be nuked unless the actual existence of an institute by that name can be confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.133.131 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I edited it for length. A Google search revealed the Breakthrough Institute in question, and link was added.GreenExpert (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of conection to Venezuela Information Office

Cut from article:

At the time of authoring his controversial essay, Shellenberger was contracted by the head of a petrostate, Hugo Chavez, through the Venezuela Information Office.

Is this information reported by any secondary reliable source? A primary source is not enough to assess the notability of this information, especially for putting it in the lead of the article. The relevance of the temporary coincidence with an essay on climate change is very unclear. And, is it necessary to call Venezuela a "petrostate"? JRSP (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree; this should not be in the lead, and the "petrostate" adjective is not NPOV. Someone should make an effort to find secondary reliable sources regarding Shellenberger's lobbying activities, though; if he's making his living as a lobbyist, that's notable. THF (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I must admit that I am impressed at the synchronicity of your edits in all articles that depict Chavez and his propagandists in an unfavorable light; let alone how you keep violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOT principles. First, JRSP has the gall to call into question the reliability of the US Department of Justice. Second, JRSP questions the notability of the information. Shellenberger is, among other things, a notorious environmentalist. An environmentalist that, at the time of writing his magnum opus, was contracted by the head of a petrostate (will get to that in a sec) --to the tune of $10,000 a month-- to peddle propaganda in the USA. JRSP does not think relevant to highlight the evident conflict of, on the one hand, climate change advocacy and, on the other, being a propagandist of the leader of the world's fourth largest oil producer, which, according to consensus (burning of fossil fuels), is one of the culprits of climate change. As per the definition of petrostate, how else would one call a country that derives nearly all of its income from exporting oil? Petrostate is not NPOV? I won't even address the need of providing secondary sources regarding Shellenberger's propaganda-peddling activities in favor of Hugo Chavez, as the US Department of Justice is a perfectly reliable source.--Alekboyd (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Alek, you'll be more persuasive if you'll be more concise and if you don't attack other editors, including one that is trying to help you. Your opinion about Shellenberger may well be correct, but unless it's reliably sourced to someone other than your personal opinion, it doesn't get to go in the encyclopedia. Under any circumstances, it doesn't get to go in the lead of the article, because it's not one of the major elements of his biography. THF (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, I am merely being factual. My opinion on Shellenberger has nothing to do with this, and quite frankly THF, it truly escapes me how you could possibly argue that the US Department of Justice isn't a reliable source. So unless you can explain to the wider Wikipedia community why the US DoJ is not to be trusted due to alleged violations of WP:RS, the information is pertinent and deserves to go in the main page. Since you have a problem having such information in the lead of the article, please suggest where we may include it.--Alekboyd (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem here, Alek, is that these are not "DOJ documents." They're filings that are being hosted on your personal website, and your edit is synthesizing conclusions that do not inexorably follow from the documents. Find a third-party source that discusses this (it can even be a published editorial that you wrote--but not a self-published editorial), and we can discuss where it belongs in the article. THF (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Shellenberger only meets qualification to be on Wiki as a published author ("public figure" status). His controversial status as it relates to his environmentalism is represented here. Every past project, however controversial, does not merit inclusion here, as he is only a public figure due to his writings on environmentalism, which started with "The Death of Environmentalism." He may have been quoted elsewhere on other issues before that, but there is no objective criteria for including some of those clients and not others here. Spokespersons for this or that issue do not merit "public figure" status on Wikipedia. We need to stick more strictly to the public figure criterion to avoid excessively long bios, as this one was previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenExpert (talk • contribs) 06:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Lumina Strategies

An editor deleted the section on the several years of work Shellenberger did with Lumina Strategies -- even though that work was widely covered in the press, and every statement in the section is sourced to reliable secondary sources. The page is a biography, and this is part of his career. It should not be deleted. THF (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered this. I have consulted to literally dozens of groups since 1996. Alek is a Venezuela activist with a bone to pick. Virtually every project I've consulted on over the last 13 years has been confrontational. Venezuela doesn't merit any more attention than any of the other clients I've worked for -- indeed less since it was a very small short-term project for me. Indeed, Lumina was only around from 2002 - 2005. I worked on Nike and Headwaters for three years, on global warming for 11. If you have people who disagreed with my work on climate or Nike sweatshops or redwoods all using this wiki page as a place to vent spleen, or engage in petty grudges, this page would be unreasonably long. I'm happy to have a section on this page about my other consulting work, but it should start with Communication Works and end with American Environics and mention other clients I've worked for. As for the petrostate stuff, that's pretty ridiculous -- my business partners are Canadians who work for the government plenty and nobody ever seems to call Canada a petrostate. I've been quoted in plenty of articles about Nike, redwoods, rain forests, etc etc. I tried to make these edits -- I'm new to Wiki so my edits may be a bit messed up, but happy to send more links to whoever has been trying to keep this page in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShellenbergerM (talk • contribs) 04:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree about "petrostate," which is inappropriate characterization in a Wikipedia article, and never made it as a lasting edit. (NB, though, that just as "petrostate" is inappropriate, so is "Nike sweatshops.") Feel free to add URLs that are missing from this article in the talk page. You may wish to review the conflict of interest and autobiography policies (Wikipedia editors are abnormally sensitive about autobiographies), as well as the material on citing reliable sources and primary sources: the key here is independent sourcing as much as possible. The Venezuela stuff is in because Lumina's work with Venezuela was widely publicized. THF (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alek is a Venezuelan activist with a bone to pick. This is entirely besides the point, for I could argue similarly, though never have advocated for environmentalism while engaged in lobby and PR for one of the world's largest oil producing states. The information is factual and has been widely publicized.--Alekboyd (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Both of you: No personal attacks, address the edit, not the editor and don't bring your outside battles to Wikipedia. The point of view you each bring to the table is manifestly obvious even if one didn't have access to Google. THF (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, the Venezuela work has to be put in context. It was a very small project for a short period of time in contrast to most of my clients over the years. The goal was not "image improvement" -- Alek is just making that up -- but rather to get honest public opinion polling done in a context where the vast majority of polls were biased. (To give you an idea, one of the prominent Venezuelan pollsters at the time told the LA Times that his president needed to be killed.) The polling we did mirrored the final vote count, which was certified as correct by Jimmy Carter and Colin Powell. Venezuela deserves less, not more, mention than my other clients.ShellenbergerM (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, forgot to add, my work was consulting. Lumina was one consulting business among three that I've owned. Erik Curren was only briefly with it for a few weeks. ShellenbergerM (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on reliable sources; the reason that the Venezuela work gets more mention in the article is because more secondary reliable sources thought it was notable. (If you show editors similar press coverage of other activity, then the Venezuela press coverage will not have the same weight.) The words "image improvement" appears only in Alek's statements, and not in the article. Please do not edit-war. (Similarly, PR week mentions Curren co-founding the firm, not him leaving after three weeks. Wikipedia, alas, works on verifiability, rather than truth.) THF (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not making anything up: SFGate has this:

In the middle of the fray has been Michael Shellenberger, president of Lumina Strategies, an El Cerrito public relations firm that was hired by Chavez in June to help repair his poor public image in the United States. link--Alekboyd (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Misleading sentence

The source article () says this: "But a public relations firm working for the government said a poll it had commissioned showed Chavez defeating the recall with 55% of the vote. The Caracas firm of Varianza Opinion based its projection on more than 53,000 interviews, said Michael Shellenberger, president of El Cerrito-based Lumina Strategies." Summarising this as "Shellenberger would speak on behalf of the Venezuelan government in that role." (the role of a lobbyist for Venezuela) can only be described as misleading: a contractor describing their contract work cannot reasonably be said to be speaking "on behalf of" the contracting party. Per WP:BLP it is out. Furthermore, lobbyists usually don't speak publicly on behalf of their clients in the sense the sentence implies - they work more behind the scenes. So the claim needs particularly good sourcing as it is unusual. Rd232 ^talk 00:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not misleading: San Francisco Chronicle has published "Bringing liberal activists' political skills to the rough-and-tumble world of Venezuelan politics, Bay Area pollsters and political consultants have played a key role in helping President Hugo Chavez win his historic election victory against a powerful opposition movement backed by the Bush administration. While Bay Area activists have long been involved in Latin American issues, Sunday's referendum on whether Chavez should be recalled is the first time since the 1979 Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua that they have been on the winning side. This time, the victory is partly theirs.... In the middle of the fray has been Michael Shellenberger, president of Lumina Strategies, an El Cerrito public relations firm that was hired by Chavez in June to help repair his poor public image in the United States." Do visit the link.--Alekboyd (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if you add that as an extra source (and WP:SYNTHESIS), it wouldn't justify the statement. He acted primarily as a contracted lobbyist; giving quotes to 2 newspapers about his work doesn't constitute "speaking on behalf". It is a misleading summary of the available sources. Rd232 ^talk 16:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

re Alekboyd's edit summary remark on "consensus": at the moment there is a consensus, albeit only 2 out of 3. Try finding others who agree with you, then come back and *discuss* - don't just revert. Rd232 ^talk 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when did editors of Wikipedia need consensus to include information which is perfectly in tune with Wikipedia policies? Is this some kind of a joke?--Alekboyd (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying not to get how Wikipedia works, or are you just too new to get it yet? Every editor can't have their way - how would you resolve disagreements not resolvable through discussion? Rd232 ^talk 23:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am merely trying to include perfectly Wikipedia-compliant information in Venezuela/Hugo Chavez related entries. Is it common practice to ask permission to editors who are bent on suppress such information? Could you point out where can I read about that particular policy? Whatever happened to being bold, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV? Wikipedia must be balanced, as in per every sympathetic bit of info there must be a critical one. Are you prepared to accept that?--Alekboyd (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's just your opinion that the information is compliant with WP policy. Others disagree. It is not a question of "suppressing" information, it is a question of writing an encyclopedia entry per WP guidelines and policy. So in answer to my question on how to resolve disagreements, you get to decide, even when you're in a minority of one? Perhaps you should start an alekboydipedia... Rd232 ^talk 13:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Others disagree, others as in you and JRSP, and of course Shellenberger who seems embarrassed by past actions. Who else? So going back to my previous question, do you or do you not agree that a balanced encyclopedia should not include information that paints overwhelmingly partisan pictures? If I am not to decide, as common sense and objectivity dictates, why should you, or JRSP? What makes your input or POV more valid than mine? Pray tell.--Alekboyd (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Common sense" does not dictate that you, alekboyd, interpret WP policies on your own. Back to basics: Wikipedia:Consensus. Rd232 ^talk 13:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to Break Through

OK, per discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Michael Shellenberger, I propose - per WP:ONEEVENT ("Cover the event, not the person.") - moving appropriate material to Break Through and deleting the article. NB Whilst there are some public references to him for other reasons he is not notable in those roles (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). Comments please. Rd232 ^talk 15:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done copy to Break Through. Next step (once protection expires in a day or two) will be to AFD this article. Rd232 ^talk 15:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done both (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Shellenberger). Rd232 ^talk 21:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The entry on Michael Shellenberger was created in December 2007. Only when I exposed the lobbying activities of Shellenberger, a notable person in his own right, on behalf of Hugo Chavez has suddenly the need to delete the entry arisen. Why? Will information about his lobbying be included in Break Through?--Alekboyd (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Because of the way WP works it is normal that articles are created and only much later challenged as to whether they should be included. See WP:AFD and look at some of the discussions. As to whether it's a coincidence that this is after your addition of WP-policy-breaching info (under WP:NPF section of WP:BLP) - no, (as you can see from comments I made at WP:BLP/N) the debate prompted more attention on the article so that the fundamental notability issue was raised. Rd232 ^talk 13:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please point to my purported addition of 'WP-policy-breaching' information with regards to Shellenberger. Shellenberger is a public figure, a "hero of the environment" according to TIME, so I disagree with this arguments of him not being notable. Could you please point to the notice board where the discussion on whether or not the entry should be deleted is taking place? Thanks.--Alekboyd (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother with diffs unless you insist, but I believe you're responsible for most of the consulting stuff, which breaches WP:NPF because Shellenberger's notability derives from Break Through. The consulting stuff is not notable. Quoting WP:NPF: "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." (NB as you've commented on the deletion debate you've now obviously found the link above.) Rd232 ^talk 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

NB if we delete the non-notable consulting that shouldn't be there, there is no material in the article that is independent of Break Through. Nor have I seen any actual (reliable) biographical info about him - which rather raises doubts about his notability independent of the book, which is why I cited WP:ONEEVENT / WP:ONEVENT in the deletion. Rd232 ^talk 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that AFD decision was KEEP, I tidied things up a bit. --NealMcB (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there even a birthday for this individual?

Hello, is there even a graduation year from college for this individual? (NotHaiyanOrThe2013TyphoonYolanda (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC))

I was wondering this too. For an older article about someone running for Governor of California, it's remarkably short on basics like birthplace, birthdate, parents, siblings etc. And then the edit war... Is it okay for people to edit entries about themselves? I am a long time but occasional editor, so don't remember. Eperotao (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Quotes or italics?

"The Death of Environmentalism" is in italics in some of this article and in quotes in other parts. It should be consistent. As far as I know, if it is an essay, quotes are appropriate. If it is a book, italics are appropriate. But, whichever is the case, it should be consistent in the article. SlowJog (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Vanity/Criticism

These topics have been discussed here before, but I think they warrant bringing up again in light of recent edits. This page has had questionable edits throughout its history, many instances of which are cataloged above. Recently there have been more than a few edits which seem like advertisements for Shellenberger's new book. It is forthcoming, and dustjacket reviews from his frequent collaborators were placed on the page. This has happened alongside some "cleanup" of the criticism areas that seem to be, well, adding or editing so that it features more positive reviews of his last book, Breakthrough.

I'm not sure what to do about this besides consistent monitoring, but I think it might help to again catalog another attempt at recent vanity/advertising on this page, especially by an account known for placing pro-nuclear sources on the Diablo Canyon earthquake vulnerability page in 2016 when Shellenberger led a a campaign to "save" its nuclear power plant, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant page itself, and Mark Z. Jacobson's page regarding his ties to renewable energy companies, the subject of which Shellenberger has written about extensively (Example and Example). All of this seems strange to me, especially given the timing of a forthcoming book, and while I don't know what to do about it, I do feel it necessary to document it. Hobomok (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That they "seem" like advertisements or to you is irrelevant - they're factual and correct. Unless you can demonstrate they violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy, so are edits to other articles I've made in the past. Quotes to appear on his yet-unpublished book have been removed.

I propose moving the "Writing" section above biographical information because Shellenberger is primarily known as an author - not for his graduation from the Peace and Global Studies (PAGS) program at Earlham College in 1993. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtmusic (talk • contribs) 00:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm stating that your reviews of Shellenberger's new book seem like advertisements. I understand they exist. I just proposed that we give some time for reviews from people who were not given advance copies to roll in, that is all. You'll note that I did not remove your notes on his congressional testimony at all. I'm also pointing out that the page's "reception" section seemed fine as is to previous editors, and there was discussion of that above two separate times, so there's really no need to make changes there, but I did not undo your Werbach addition. Given the nature of additions about his book and the changes to the "reception" section, which you called a "biased hit piece," although it begins with a quote that says his first book "could be the best thing to happen to the environmental movement since Carson's Silent Spring" (which has also been discussed above), I simply ask that for additions going forward, they're opened for discussion on this talk page.

As for the writing section, I feel as if it should stay where it is, considering that is how the majority of Wikipedia pages are laid out. For example, F. Scott Fitzgerald is best known for The Great Gatsby, but his page still begins with his life after the lead, which mentions his works just like Shellenberger's does. Further, Shellenberger might be more well-known for his work with various institutions and consulting firms, I think? That's an honest question because I'm honestly not sure about that, but that's why I suggest it be brought to discussion on the talk page, especially considering this page has seen an overhaul over the last few days. Hobomok (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Credentials

Can someone find out what exactly his credentials are? Does he have a degree? If so, what is the degree, what year, from what university? It seems pretty clear that he doesn't have a Ph.D. He seems to be a self-appointed activist mostly interested in the limelight and making money from books (which are easier to sell if you take an extremist position). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehasa (talk • contribs) 10:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell from monitoring this page for a while, reading two of his books, and actually teaching his nuclear TED Talk, I think your assessment regarding his credentials is correct. He has a Peace and Global Studies degree from Earlham, and a Cultural Anthropology Master’s from UC Santa Cruz, and then he has run various organizations and has been taking a contrarian point of view for years under the guise of an environmentalist that has had various “epiphanies”: first he “woke up” up to the need for technological innovation and “progress” in environmentalism, then he realized nuclear power was the answer to climate change, and now he’s decided climate change and other anthropogenic environmental ills like ocean plastic pollution aren’t really that bad.

I do not think he is an authority on the climate, but he may have experience lobbying for nuclear power, and he has written books that have received popular attention, so I can understand the point of the page. However, it should continue to be monitored, I think, given its history of vanity and advertisement, especially around a new book that the author hopes will be controversial. Hobomok (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hobomok, you say it doesn't belong, I say it does. How do we move forward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trying to reconnect (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I just explained it on your talk page, but you'll need to begin by creating your own section on this talk page, as this specific section of the talk page is for something else. Hobomok (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Forbes

The Forbes article, and its censorship by Forbes, was an event that was covered in detail by multiple sources, in the US, Australia, New Zealand and Poland. It is at least as notable as the 'Manifesto', which got minimal coverage and where Shellenberger was just one of multiple authors. If the Mainfesto belongs, so does this. Trying to reconnect (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You should start by listing which reliable independent secondary sources have covered the Forbes affair. If you prefer you could add a proposed text with references below. It would also be useful to review WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OTHERCONTENT. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Coverage around this Forbes article seems to, again, follow and be based around the publication of his newest book, which came out three days ago. As I've stated multiple times over the last couple of weeks on this talk page, I really think it would do best if we all paused making substantial edits to the page as advertising for the book moves into full-swing, especially given this page's history of vanity/advertisement from its inception that I think is pretty well-documented here. That is, I do not think that the author's ongoing spat with Forbes needs to be covered in real-time by an encyclopedia, especially as it revolves around his book that came out three days ago. If this proves relevant in some time, then I would invite us to revisit it. On a related note, a quick look at his twitter also shows him courting controversy with other news media regarding interviews and emails. It seems to me that this is going to be an ongoing situation with multiple news outlets surrounding publication of a book, and the book is already listed on this page, so I think it best for us to wait, because Wikipedia is not news, it is an encyclopedia. If this becomes noteworthy in the future outside of book advertising, I believe we can and should revisit it then. Hobomok (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the Forbes incident is directly related to his new book, but I am not opposed to mentioning it in the same section as the one about the book, rather than in its own section. W:NOTNEWS says " routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." - but I don't see how that's relevant here. Trying to reconnect (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but the beginning of that section in WP:NOTNEWS says "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example...". Sports, announcements, and celebrity news are just that, only examples. The page's subject's squabble with Forbes is one episode in a long list of squabbles that he seems to create. If we were to include every episode where Shellenberger called foul or someone questioned him, we'd end up with a diary page, which Wikipedia is not, per WP:NOTNEWS: "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person."

In light of this, I might actually question whether we need that list of every letter he's written in campaigns to save nuclear plants. I think just the statement that Environmental Progress is behind "several public campaigns" and then links to those campaigns would streamline the article and take out some already existent fluff. Of course, his congressional testimony would stay, that seems notable to me. What I'm saying here is, there's already fluff on this article that I think could be removed, and there's no need to add any more. Especially considering he's now battling with other reporters, and I assume he'll continue to do so. That being the case, the notable stuff is here, I think (and then some). Hobomok (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you under the impression he created the issue with Forbes? The way I see it, and the way sources reported on it, it was Forbes who created the incident, by publishing and then inexplicably removing his article. If there is fluff in this article, remove it, but that has no bearing on the notability of this incident. Trying to reconnect (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Whatever Shellenberger's motives are do not matter--I'm not here to figure them out, and his Wikipedia page isn't platform to speculate. What does matter is that there's a long list of his battles with different outlets and different people throughout his career, and it's going to continue to grow as he courts controversy over his book. If someone wants a listing of those, they need go no further than his Twitter page. This is not his twitter page; it's an encyclopedia. This minor disagreement with Forbes isn't notable in the way that other aspects of this page are. Again, this happened less than a week ago. Let's take some space from it, and also and again, let's think about how this spat with Forbes compares to the other aspects of this, and other, Wikipedia pages.--Hobomok (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hobomok: You removed a couple of paragraphs I had written about the article and the response to it from Climate Feedback, and messaged me that "There's currently a discussion happening on the Talk page regarding that very topic and whether or not it should be included there. You're more than welcome to join in!". So I am. I disagree with your removal of my edits. I suggest that there are three separate, if related, issues here: (1) the book, (2) the article, and (3) Forbes' pulling of the article. On issue (1) I don't think there's any dispute that the book itself is notable and should be included on the page. On issue (2): the article is not the book. Whether it should be included depends on whether it is in itself notable. Whilst the content of the article is in some ways a blatant promotion of the book it has also, arguably (and I am arguing it ;-)) taken on a significance of its own in the response it has received from others in the environmental, climate change, and climate denialist worlds. In particular I think the fact that several scientists, including Shellenberger's former colleage at TBI, Zeke Hausfather, have taken the time to respond to the article on the Climate Feedback page I referenced, establish its notability. Issue (3): Forbes' pulling of the article (which I gather they are saying was because of the article's shameless promotion of the book, not because of the position MS was taking). I agree with you Hobomok; I don't think that's notable. But that's not the same as the article itself not being notable John Stumbles (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your points here. I'd say that it's time we invite an outside editor or two into this conversation in order to make an informed decision based on all of these points, rather than continually adding points about this article on the page itself. It will quickly become an edit war. If Forbes pulling the article wasn't notable, and the article is in and of itself promotion for his book, then why do we have it on here? Again, this is recent news. It's going to continue to go back and forth over and over again over the next few weeks as Shellenberger courts more controversy through his Twitter page. This should not be a real-time unfolding of the way that he argues with people and how others respond to him. It's unnecessary that we update an ongoing situation where the author of the book/the page's subject continues to call attention to claims he makes in a book which is already represented on the page, which came out a week ago. Can we not let time decide on this? Again, I feel that this is especially important on a page known for vanity and advertising. I am in no way saying you're engaging in this behavior, I just want to point out that given the page's history, we should be especially careful with what goes on this page, as it's been used for such purposes many times in the past, per its history and the previous posts on this talk page. --Hobomok (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

References

For completeness (as before I am not suggesting that this spat be included) the Forbes article has now been republished by The Spectator. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Rfc about Forbes Article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached: Oppose inclusion . Hobomok (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Should Shellenberger's recent Forbes Article about his new book be included on his page? --Hobomok (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There's obviously been some debate here for some time. Per my previous arguments: the page has been known for vanity and advertisement for a while, and prior to the book's publication, various pre-publication reviews were placed on the page, which were removed. After the book's publication the subject wrote an article for Forbes covering the points he makes in his book, which was marked as inappropriate advertising and thus removed from Forbes' website. Shellenberger then tweeted about the removal extensively and it has been covered by a few news outlets. In addition to this, Shellenberger has claimed that other news outlets are biased against him, and is asking for investigations of conflict of interest/bias against him. Most recently he has claimed that Facebook is biased against him, and is calling for Mark Zuckerberg to investigate said bias. In short, it seems to me that the author is courting controversy in order to drum up attention for the book that came out a week ago, and including the Forbes spat on his page is a case of WP:NOTNEWS in addition to advertising for the book.

My main argument for not including these recent occurrences, then, is that it has happened very recently, and we should allow some time away from it before adding it on the page, if it all, given the recent publication of his book and the page's history of vanity and advertising, which is apparent on the talk page. The book's publication on the page is enough, I believe, and if readers would like to see Shellenberger complain about his treatment by the media, they can read his Twitter. This issue can be revisited in a bit of time, I think, and then we can make the decision about whether or not this is actually notable or newsworthy. Otherwise it just ends up reporting on recent news about a recently released book. On the other hand, a couple of other editors disagree with me, so in order to avoid an edit war I bring the issue here to see what others might think.--Hobomok (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose (inclusion). This page has promotional problems generally. In addition there are notable criticism's of his positions which are in-explicitly missing (google 'luke warmist'). Furthermore, many climate scientists have called him a liar and spreading disinformation, debunking his ideas point by point. These serious criticisms should be included before we start piling on yet more fawning and non-critical marketing material for his book. -- GreenC 20:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose (inclusion). I am concerned by the openly hostile tone of many of the comments in the sections above, and would remind editors that per WP:BLPTALK "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages". Nevertheless on the substantive question I agree that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. Save it for the Encyclopedia of Meaningless, Ephemeral, Twitter Spats. Coming soon, if it isn't here already. M.boli (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reception of "Apocalypse Never ...."

Would it be relevant to collate comments from scholarly relevant scientists about Shellenberger essays? For instance ː https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/article-by-michael-shellenberger-mixes-accurate-and-inaccurate-claims-in-support-of-a-misleading-and-overly-simplistic-argumentation-about-climate-change/ ̴̴̴̴̊̊̊̊ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneza (talk • contribs) 20:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Some reviews of the new book and Shellenberger's promotional essays, have been acid. Here is a book review by Peter Gleick.

The most serious flaw, however, is that he assumes a position and seeks data and facts to fit that position rather than, as science demands, using data and facts to develop, test, and refine a theory. As a result, the book suffers from logical fallacies, arguments based on emotion and ideology, the setting up and knocking down of strawman arguments, and the selective cherry-picking and misuse of facts, all interspersed with simple mistakes and misrepresentations of science. Distressingly, this is also an angry book, riddled with ugly ad hominem attacks on scientists, environmental advocates, and the media.

Zeke Hausfather, Director of Climate and Energy at the Breakthrough Instutite and wrote in that climatefeedback article:

Shellenberger’s article promoting his new book “Apocalypse Never” includes a mix of accurate, misleading, and patently false statements. While it is useful to push back against claims that climate change will lead to the end of the world or human extinction, to do so by inaccurately downplaying real climate risks is deeply problematic and counterproductive. Shellenberger’s claims that climate plays no role in natural disasters and wildfires fly in the face of a large peer-reviewed scientific literature showing clear links between climate change and extreme heat events, drought, and extreme rainfall as well as links between hotter and drier conditions and wildfire areas burned in many regions of the world

I think that it would be useful to put some of this material in the article. It must be noted, however, that the publisher garnered a variety of very positive blurbs and reviews, which are quoted at the book's Amazon.com page. M.boli (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that these should be included on the page, as they are neutral reviews from people knowledgeable in the field. However, as you point out, the pre-publication reviews are positive, and while I do not believe those belong here, as they’ve been solicited by the author and publisher, we should probably reach a consensus about the pre-publication reviews’ place on the page before adding these other reviews. I only say that because we need only look at the way previous essays and books have been presented on this page to see that favorable quotes have been cherry-picked, or positive reviews of writing have been included just to offset negative reviews in the past, when in actuality, the majority of reviews regarding this work have been negative. For what it’s worth, I recommend including the Gleick and Hausfather points alone. Hobomok (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Googling for reviews, it seems to me that most reviews so far have been by either non-experts or ideological compatriots. The non-experts take the author's story and assertions at face value. Shellenberger tells a compelling tale. I concur that it might make sense to wait for more knowledgeable reviewers to weigh in. M.boli (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The favourable pre-publication reviews at Praise for Apocalypse Never include reviews from Richard Rhodes, Tom Wigley, Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt, Kerry Emanuel, Erle Ellis, Michael Lind, John Horgan (journalist), Jon Entine, Andrew McAfee, Steve McCormick (executive), Steven F. Hayward, Robert Bryce (writer), Robert Stone (director) and Jonathan H. Adler. These people are not all gullible fools, and several of them have highly relevant experience. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Of these, only Erle Ellis and Kerry Emanuel seem to have any climate expertise. I don't see how any of the others are any more competent in climatology than a random person on the street. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You have something against Tom Wigley? The rest of the list is varied, but includes science and environmental journalists and political scientists, which seems appropriate for a book on environmental politics. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I just overlooked him. The rest is, as I said, hoi polloi. It may "seem appropriate" to you, but that does not mean it actually is. Redefining climate science as "environmental politics" is a nice trick, but it does not work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well let's look at Tom Wigley's review:

Environmental issues are frequently confused by conflicting and often extreme views, with both sides fueled to some degree by ideological biases, ignorance and misconceptions. Shellenberger’s balanced and refreshing book delves deeply into a range of environmental issues and exposes misrepresentations by scientists, one-sided distortions by environmental organizations, and biases driven by financial interests. His conclusions are supported by examples, cogent and convincing arguments, facts and source documentation. This may be the most important book on the environment ever written.

Redefining a book about "a range of environmental issues" as being solely about climate science seems to be the only trick being tried here, but even in those terms we have a former director of the Climatic Research Unit saying very supportive things about it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Publicity/Vanity

I'm tossing this up here as a reflection of recent edits to this page. As is clear by this Talk history, this page has had some promotional/vanity issues throughout its existence. The same can be said for Shellenberger's frequent collaborator Ted Nordhaus and their Breakthrough Institute. I've recently attempted to clean the page up by removing a lot of cherry picked and misleading quotes which either misrepresent what was said in various articles or purposefully cut clauses in half. I think these misrepresentations are because Single-purpose account editing has been rampant across the pages for Shellenberger/Nordhaus/Breakthrough Institute (See: Here, here, here, here, and here). My hope is that I've remedied the vanity on this and Nordhaus's page, so I've removed the banner calling attention to the promotional nature of the page. Hopefully the page will continue to stay streamlined. --Hobomok (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

What you did here violates wikipedia policy. You wrote a completely biased attack on me. Somebody needs to come in here and provide some objective moderation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:100A:B300:516:1B99:5D1B:639B (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Page Needs Objective Moderation

Somebody came in and vandalized this page, filling it with misrepresentations and misdescriptions. ~Michael Shellenberger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:100A:B300:516:1B99:5D1B:639B (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There were lies added to this page. One included that my coauthor and I called ourselves "the bad boys of environmentalism." We were called that by Bill McKibben.

A grown-up needs to intervene here as grossly biased haters are vandalizing this page.~ michae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:100A:B300:516:1B99:5D1B:639B (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous IP, or, rather, Mr. Shellenberger: I am the editor that revised this page. I in no way meant to "vandalize" the page or "slander" you. I edited this page to remedy the promotional nature of the page, which was introduced on this page and others by many single-purpose accounts and has been called into question by a few editors on this talk page. This is reflected in the history of this talk page and the others in question, and when I began making these edits the page was marked as "promotional" via a banner. I sought to correct this. I apologize if it seemed like an attack. I also apologize if Mr. McKibben named you and your co-author the "Bad Boys of Environmentalism," but one cited source names you both as the originators of the moniker. I have tried to reflect what academic literature has said about the writing on this page, which is verifiable critique and comes from trusted sources in trusted academic journals. Julie Sze, for example, is a pretty well-respected scholar in the environmental field, and TJ Demos is a respected art and environmental historian. Their critiques do not amount to "lies," but rather, well, critiques. Including such criticism does not run counter to Biographies of living persons policy, and adding verified academic information does not run contrary to what are sourced and cited reliable sources, as reflected here. Per Wikipedia formatting, the page should read as lead--biography--and then listed works in chronological order, as it previously did prior to your edits here. Arbitration, per both of the articles I've linked in this response, is an option. I in no way meant to disparage you or attack you, and I am not a "hater," I assure you. I can also assure you that I am an adult. If you have an issue with me specifically, my talk page is always open, and my email is attached to it. I wish you the best. --Hobomok (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Just one more note--I wanted to add the academic sources that were added to the page here to reflect academic conversations around the writing presented, as they are verifiable and trusted sources from trusted academics like Sze, Demos, and Jeremy Caradonna/Richard B. Norgaard.

1. "Climate Change, Environmental Aesthetics, and Global Environmental Justice Cultural Studies"

2. "A Degrowth Response to an Ecomodernist Manifesto"

3. Against the Anthropocene: Visual Culture and Environment Today

I cut it there as I only wanted the page to reflect a survey of the response the works have received, but more could have been added. For example, Joni Adamson and Scott Slovic's "The Shoulders We Stand on: An Introduction to Ethnicity and Ecocriticism." --Hobomok (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

To be honest I doubt that someone of Shellenberger's stature would be posting on his own Wikipedia talk page, unprofessionally calling people names in a childish manner. Probably a fake account. -- GreenC 21:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought the same, but was initially careful given that it seems Mr. Shellenberger, or again, another fake account, has been on the Talk page before, above. If that's the case, I'm going to revert these recent edits. Thanks for the feedback here. --Hobomok (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The "bad boys" moniker is from a source over 15 years old and it's a single source. Since this is a BLP in the lead section, it might be a WEIGHT issue. I'd like to remove it failing additional support in other sources. Something like that, of that age, needs more context. -- GreenC 22:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Then please do not make any changes until we can talk. The page your just restored contains outright lies. I am an author, energy expert, and journalist. You lie about me in the very first sentence. I am going to message you privately to see if we can resolve this or if we need to invite third party moderation

References

User is biased and should not be allowed to edit this page

This person "Hobomok" appears to have set this account up in 2019, used it once, and then dedicated the rest of his/her time lying about me and vandalizing this page, and trying to come across as some experience Wikipedian in when in reality the edits the anonymous "Hobomok" have made here have been almost entirely directed toward. I would again asked for unbiased moderation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:100A:B300:516:1B99:5D1B:639B (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I hope other users review this Hobomok's persons edits. He wrote misinformation repeatedly, and left the page with a grossly one-sided attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:100A:B300:516:1B99:5D1B:639B (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous IP, or, Mr. Shellenberger. I have explained my edits further below in response to your initial post on this talk page. I assure you, I did not set out to attack you or to write misinformation. As I said below, I welcome any discussion with you on this page, my own talk page, or via the email link on my talk page. I have no ill-will towards you.--Hobomok (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Then please do not make any changes until we can talk. The page your just restored contains outright lies. I am an author, energy expert, and journalist. You lie about me in the very first sentence. I am going to message you privately to see if we can resolve this or if we need to invite third party moderation

I wrote on your page. I see no email link on your talk page. My email can be found through the bio of my web site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:100A:B300:516:1B99:5D1B:639B (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Old trick. If you do not like what a person says, declare that person "biased" to shut them up. We get that all the time on Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes apparently if the (false) accusations lobbed during the phone conversation with this ip are to be believed, I am part of a vast conspiracy working to discredit the page’s subject. -Hobomok (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

This web site lies about me in the first line. I am an author and journalist. The claim that I am a "public relations professional" is a lie and needs to be taken down 2603:3024:100A:B300:516:1B99:5D1B:639B (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not commenting about the request and will let another editor handle it. In case it can help, It is possible to confirm your identity by creating an account and to contact the WP:OTRS team to have it confirmed (it would be tagged with the {{Verified account}} template). Without this other editors are free to not believe identity claims. In either case, the policy about conflict of interest applies (WP:COI) and posting suggestions on this talk page is fine. —PaleoNeonate – 23:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Taking this in good-faith, I do believe it makes sense to change the lead to "journalist and author" as opposed to "public relations professional." If the IP turns out not to be Mr. Shellenberger, it's not like those edits fail to reflect reality at this point in time. When I originally edited the lead, the information in the career section made sense related to public relations professional. Also, I agree with GreenC's edit r/t "bad boys of environmentalism" nickname above. --Hobomok (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that (a) Schellenberger is not a climate scientist; (b) climate scientists don't consider his views to be at all persuasive and (c) Shellenberger believes that this is oppressing his free speech and visionary perspective. Reading around it in numerous sources, his self-image is way out of line with the independent view of the validity of his writing. Good luck finding middle ground here, and don't forget that in science any compromise between a correct statement and an incorrect statement is an incorrect statement. 148.253.152.122 (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Following outside contact from someone affiliated with this page, I was told to change the “former PR professional” designation from the lede by that person. After much thought I am going to re-add this. It is treated heavily in the background section of the page, and changing a page because of outside pressure is a bad precedent to set, in my mind. Further, the PR background is treated in many media stories (see cited LA Review of Books review of Apocalypse Never/number of scholarly articles cited in lede and paper). If anyone has issue with this and/or would like to request 3rd party moderation I accept that decision and resultant discussion. —Hobomok (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this really belongs in the lead. Coverage in the career section is entirely proper of course. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say it does, only because it makes up a large section of the career section, but if we have differing opinions this is fine—we can always seek another opinion. —Hobomok (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

For now I'm going to move it to later in the lead. Having it right in the opening is an inappropriate concentration on a past career which is largely irrelevant to what he is currently best known for. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Vague assertions and citations in connection with controversy

Particularly on controversial figures, we have an obligation to provide specific examples of promoters and detractors if we report that controversy exists. For example, the previous version stated:

"Shellenberger and frequent collaborator Ted Nordhaus have been described by Slate as "ecomodernists".[9][10] A controversial and polarizing figure,[11] Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics [12][13][14][15]."

It goes without saying that critical statements can be found for any controversial author. Citing a group of four widely varying sources with short phrase quotations lends no credibility to the claims, e.g. "inaccurate." I.e., who said "inaccurate"? It was Glieck, but the substance of Glieck's criticism is that Shellenberger made inappropriate use of evidence, a far more substantive critique than "inaccurate."

Further, the assertion of being controversial is pointless without some reporting of the audience perspectives giving rise to the controversiality.

Finally, if we need a page on the collaboration of Shellenberger and Norhaus then let’s add one. The programs of Nordhaus and Shellenberger have diverged sufficiently over the past 12 years that connecting them here misrepresents Shellenberger’s position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstorage (talk • contribs) 06:46, June 1, 2021 (UTC)

It's the lead section, per WP:LEAD the language is supposed to be summary and not overly specific, as you have done. The details are expanded upon in the body of the article, not the lead. -- GreenC 05:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on summary language. You did not address the matter of logical structure of the argument (claim) that Shellenberger is controversial. Unless the reader understands controversiality itself to be a negative attribute, following the claim of controversiality with evidence only of detractors is extremely biased. Further, grouping the subject with another writer who holds a substantially different position from the subject is clearly a "guilt by association" fallacy having no place here. Bstorage (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Both he and Nordhaus are treated in the cited article, as both were called ecomodernists in said article. Collaboration with nordhaus is treated in the article further, so the lead reflects that. Further, regarding the “controversial” and “polarizing” claim, that was added by another editor after much discussion here, and they added the scientific American article cited as evidence of those agreeing with shellenberger. It previously read, “Shellenberger’s positions have been called “bad science” and “inaccurate” by environmental scientists and academics.” If anything, controversial should be removed and that wording should go back to how it was previously. The Tierney article in the WSJ doesn’t belong alongside critiques from environmental scientists and academics. Please discuss potential changes here before changing the lead, esp. as the page was changed recently due to disagreements. -Hobomok (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The summary as written leads a reader to understand that Shellenberger and Nordhaus are current collaborators. Per the body, they have not collaborated in over a decade. The positions of Shellenberger and Nordhaus have diverged significantly during that time. The fact that Nordhaus is treated in the article further does not justify associating the two authors in the summary paragraph. The tone of the summary does not reflect the facts and opinions presented in the body, e.g., "Before publication the book received favourable reviews." The association of Shellenberger with Nordhaus, the introduction of Shellenberger as a former PR professional (insinuating a causal relationship between that history and his current position), and the appearance of the controversial/polarizing claim followed only with clearly negative ("bad science") evidence presents an inaccurate picture of Shellenberger's present program and an inaccurate summary of what follows on the page. Given the likelihood of a reader reading only the summary and the likelihood of his interpreting that summary as overwhelmingly negative, the principles of charity in argument should be applied here. This is bias, whether intentional or not, and it reeks of innuendo. On the matter of appropriateness of citations, the criterion of "environmental scientists and academics" is arbitrary and vague. T.J. Demos is a thoughtful and entertaining writer, but his status as an academic art historian should not give him citation authority unavailable to Wigley or McCormick. Readers given access to sources are generally capable of evaluating arguments on their merit, independent of whether the source meets the criterion of scientist or academic, particularly when the academic has no relevant academic credentials. I agree that "polarizing" has no place here. It is poorly defined and not an attribute of the subject but of the audience. Let's fix the bias in the summary paragraph. Bstorage (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The summary should stay as-is, because it is an accurate summary of the body of the article. Shellenberger and Nordhaus have been frequent collaborators, as the body of the article explains. The polarizing claim is followed by the scientific American article, which is a positive review of his book. Demos is an art and environmental historian—his critique is valid for that reason. As I stated previously on this talk page, there are critiques from other academics in environmental fields that are not included here. The ones that are represented only provide a summary representation of the negative press that Shellenberger’s writing has received. Finally, Shellenberger is indeed a former PR executive, which is also treated in the body of the article, so it belongs in the lead. There has already been much discussion on that claim as well on this talk page, and it was decided that the current wording is how the page would read. Many of the complaints you have here have been discussed on this talk page previously. I would recommend going back through the long, and at times recent, history of discussion on this talk page and see how it was decided that the lead would read the way it does. Much of it reads the way that it does for reasons that are clearly spelled out here. -Hobomok (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Since I was responsible for much of the previous text I wanted to let other people contribute before chipping in, but you won't be surprised to hear that I broadly like the text, which was a careful attempt to weave together both what the sources say and the preferences expressed by various people on the talk page. Frankly I think that the single most obvious point about Shellenberger is that he is a polarising and controversial figure: serious people on all sides of the debate have strong opinions about him, with quite a few being strongly pro parts of what he has said and done over the years while being strongly anti other things he has said and done. Personally I think the current version slightly over does the criticism and under does the praise, but I'm probably in a minority there, and the more important thing is that Shellenberger generates bucket loads of both. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Over the past 2 weeks I've asked people in my field (History of Science) for an assessment of the tone of the introductory paragraph. All of them, including two who identify as Marxists, saw the summary as both framing the subject in a negative light and as being more negative than the article it summarizes. Regardless of the references, the sentence "A controversial and polarizing figure, Shellenberger's positions have been called 'bad science' and 'inaccurate' by environmental scientists and academics" employs negative connotations of his being polarizing with no indication in the sentence that any technically competent reviewer finds merit in his program. If particulars like "called 'bad science'" are needed to explain controversiality in a summary then particulars like {insert praise by competent reviewer} should be also. If no such competent praise exists, then the figure is not controversial in any way that warrants presence in a summary. One need not be a Derrida disciple or hermeneutics expert to guess that bias underlies readers' judgement that the summary is negative. It is a matter of which true introductory clauses or parentheticals are paired with each (yes, of course true) proposition. Compare reasonable (and true) options: Former PR professional -> environmental writer vs. former teen environmental activist -> environmental writer. 76.218.218.207 (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to refer back to the previous discussions on this page about what a lead should and shouldn't be. The lead provides a summary of the article, and as the article stands, this is a summary of the article. Many people have stated that r/t this page's lead. Shellenberger is indeed a former PR professional. That has already been moved from the top of the lead after discussion here and after I received phone calls and emails from someone close to the article who had issues with that designation. It is treated in the article, it is true, it should stay. Regarding the "bad science" and "inaccurate" sentence--that is what the body of the article reflects after academic critiques of the subject's writing were introduced to the page. The lead is no more negative or representative of academic response to this writing than the body of the article itself. As I have also stated previously on this page, if you would like me to add more academic critiques of the author, I can, but I feel that the current representation is satisfactory. Nothing has changed that would merit changing the lead of this page. That you claim to be in the field of history of science and claim to have done a peer review with colleagues, two of whom identify marxists, doesn't mean anything in the face of the history of discussion on this page. I am also not sure what these two people being self-identified marxists has to do with anything. Hobomok (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning the Marxist thing is probably connected to the fact that the typical enemies of environmentalism, free-market fundamentalists, are also enemies of Marxism and, since grasping the concept of having two enemies is asking too much of some people, they often depict those who want to protect the environment as Communists. A great example of this simple-minded way of thinking is James Delingpole's "Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future" - the watermelon is green on the outside and red on the inside. So, to someone who believes that crap, quoting Marxists is supposed to make a statement more credible for someone they suspect of environmentalism.

Of course, the debate is actually about science on one hand versus absurd ideologies which claim that the economy is all-important and nothing else counts, on the other. A description which includes not only market fundamentalism but also Marxism.

Disregarding the Marxist thing, it is important for the IP to understand that one cannot increase the weight of one's opinion on Wikipedia Talk pages by bragging about academic accomplishments or by claiming backup from other academically accomplished people. Instead of just mentioning your education, you should actually apply it: Sound reasoning will work.

Regarding that point, what Hobomok says is simply true: the "bad science" quote, for example, is repeated further down. I guess you want to say that the economists' and journalists' agreement with Shellenberger should also be mentioned in the lede. But all three media outlets quoted are well-known for their pro-free-market, anti-environmental bias, and at least WSJ and Die Welt are part of the climate change denial industry, so their agreement is a dog-bites-man story, not worth mentioning in the lede. The same is true for economists, who are overwhelmingly free-market proponents and often climate change deniers. The position of those loud but essentially incompetent people has been put in the word "controversial" in the lede. That should be enough.

The only positive reactions from people who would count - if published in reliable source - were instead filtered through the site of the publisher of the book, which is not a reliable source. I don't know why we use that one, and I think everything sourced to it should be deleted. The fact that one of the people quoted by it says something different in another venue speaks volumes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using reviews quoted on the the book's website. Of course these have been selected by the publisher, but nobody is denying that these people actually said these things, and so far only one of them has sought to caveat his published remarks. Shellenberger is described as a "controversial and polarising figure" precisely because opinions about him are so varied. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

What about WP:BIASED? When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering The level of indepence is zero, we do not know anything about editorial control, and a promotional site will hardly have a reputation for fact-checking. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to add this: nobody is denying that these people actually said these things You would not say that if you had debated creationists for years. Some sources are unreliable not because what they say is not true, but because they omit essential stuff that is also true. A source can "accurately" quote another, repeating things they actually said, but turn the whole picture by 180° by repeating only some parts and omitting other parts. Like creationists, climate change denialists are masters at this game, but a PR department very obviously will also do that. See Quote mining and Cherry picking. Just look at the case we know about: Emanuel added negative bits to what the publisher quoted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources here are the individuals quoted, not the publisher, so WP:BIASED doesn't apply. And nobody quoted has claimed that these quotes were inaccurate or even selective. Kerry Emanuel is on record that, despite adding subsequent caveats, he has "no regrets about the endorsement" . Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources here are the individuals quoted, not the publisher, so WP:BIASED doesn't apply That is bullshit. The source is a promotional website that quotes people. Of yourse it is not a reliable source. There is no need for anyone to say anything, the source is simply not up to standard, since it is a site which has the purpose of selling something, and tells you stuff with the intention to make you buy. The quotes are part of that. See WP:PROMO: Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chas ehere. Are you denying that Richard Rhodes said "Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book. Within its lively pages, Michael Shellenberger uses science and lived experience to rescue a subject drowning in misunderstanding and partisanship. His message is invigorating: if you have feared for the planet’s future, take heart."? Are you denying that Tom Wigley said "Environmental issues are frequently confused by conflicting and often extreme views, with both sides fueled to some degree by ideological biases, ignorance and misconceptions. Michael Shellenberger’s balanced and refreshing book delves deeply into a range of environmental issues and exposes misrepresentations by scientists, one-sided distortions by environmental organizations, and biases driven by financial interests. His conclusions are supported by examples, cogent and convincing arguments, facts and source documentation. Apocalypse Never may well be the most important book on the environment ever written."? Are you denying that Steven Pinker said "We must protect the planet, but how? Some strands of the environmental movement have locked themselves into a narrative of sin and doom that is counterproductive, anti-human, and not terribly scientific. Shellenberger advocates a more constructive environmentalism that faces our wicked problems and shows what we have to do to solve them."? Are you denying that Jonathan Haidt said "If there is one thing that we have learned from the coronavirus pandemic, it is that strong passions and polarized politics lead to distortions of science, bad policy, and potentially vast, needless suffering. Are we making the same mistakes with environmental policies? I have long known Michael Shellenberger to be a bold, innovative, and nonpartisan pragmatist. He is a lover of the natural world whose main moral commitment is to figure out what will actually work to safeguard it. If you share that mission, you must read Apocalypse Never."? Are you denying that Kerry Emanuel said "The painfully slow global response to human-caused climate change is usually blamed on the political right’s climate change denial and love affair with fossil fuels. But in this engaging and well-researched treatise, Michael Shellenberger exposes the environmental movement’s hypocrisy in painting climate change in apocalyptic terms while steadfastly working against nuclear power, the one green energy source whose implementation could feasibly avoid the worst climate risks. Disinformation from the left has replaced deception from the right as the greatest obstacle to mitigating climate change."? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I am denying nothing. Stop wall-of-texting, strawmanning, and analyzing my state of mind, and engage with my actual reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I also think the prepublication reviews should be nixed, or at the very least cut back in their treatment on the page. Prepublication reviews solicited by the book publisher from former collaborators (Ellis, Pinker, etc.) don’t hold the same weight as/aren’t neutral like the LA Review of Books, also cited, for example. Second, I question the wording and place of Shellenberger’s response to Gleick and the climate feedback response at Environmental Progress. Shellenberger responds to most critiques of his work—see even this talk page, for example—I’m not sure every one needs to be represented here. Also, it’s not a “publication,” it’s a website. At the very least the wording should change.-Hobomok (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The matter of citations and sources being deemed valid if they are "academic" and invalid if they have any connection to a corporate entity seems utterly naïve and ignorant of the history of science. Critics of science in the 1960's were overwhelmingly concerned about the biases of corporate science. Big tobacco is the textbook case. Yet it was academic science that President Eisenhower worried about on leaving office. He spoke of his concern that the military's sponsorship of, and involvement in, academic science (which he inaccurately termed the "military-industrial complex") had lead to unwarranted influence and a "disastrous rise of misplaced power." Eisenhower's worry was that the government's (military) pressure on academic research lead to bad science. Official science and academic science are subject to the same pressures that bias corporate science. Some historians of science (e.g. Peter Railton, Marx and the Objectivity of Science) argue that corporate science usually still seeks to get the world right, since competition in a free market exerts pressure to do so. Even accepting the Marxist critique that science serves the interest of capital, corporate science is usually nudged toward reliability by causal feedback from natural phenomena and its function within a free market system. No equivalent competitive (market) pressure exists in government and academic science. Again accepting Marx's position for sake of argument, prestige and ideology are present in all kinds of science, but are only steered toward objectivity by the peer review system, which, on Thomas Kuhn's view, has limited effectiveness because the reviewers are literal peers, operating in and defending the same paradigm as those they review. Within a paradigm, close peers mutually advocate for each other and shield commonly held views from criticism. The well-documented decline in cognitive and value diversity in academics over the past 15 years suggests to me that affiliation with a university (which I happen to have) does not grant one a claim to objectivity or an immunity to bias. Many cases of blind academic - even academic-science - dogmatism bear this out, "Race Science" in the early 1900s, eugenics, and frontal lobotomies are recent examples of bad science that were overwhelmingly (if not universally) endorsed in US academics against non-academic protest. Bstorage (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Bstorage, thank you for the history of science lesson re: Eisenhower and the free market's invisible hand in research. As you may well know, this is not the 1960's, and industry-funded science, esp. in the case of climate, has its own sordid history that I won't get into here because it's not the time or the place, as much as you're trying to make a case for an internet debate. Further, there are more than a few people here affiliated with universities, (I am sure some of them are also affiliated with STS in some manner) and none of them are trying to use their position as leverage, so, as other users have explained to you, that's not really going to get you very far.

The points here (which are off-topic in this heading) are that the prepublication reviews were solicited by the publisher, and the academic sources you're casting aspersions on are peer-reviewed. These are not even examples of the industry-funded science you discuss--rather, they are examples of prepublication reviews solicited by a publisher about a book. Regardless of the issues with peer review one hundred years ago that you've cited as examples (or "well-documented decline in cognitive and value diversity in academics over the past 15 years" that you claim), the academic sources are the best sources available, and they're from people recognized as experts in their respective fields, across a number of environmental fields (scientists/economists/historians and other humanists/etc.). Beyond the case of prepublication reviews, which, again, are not the same as the industry funding that you are talking about, my point r/t the website is that it's essentially self-published (SEE: WP:USESPS), so I'm not sure if it holds merit here. Much like the prepublication reviews, it is also not the same thing as industry funded science.

Regardless of any and all of that, it's not the point of this discussion under this heading. That discussion has reached consensus further down and the lede has been changed because consensus was reached. If you'd like to debate the merits of prepublication reviews and self-published responses on a website vs peer-reviewed critique, then feel free to start a new section on the TALK page. --Hobomok (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Rather, the right place for this discussion is Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Bstorage is trying to get the rules changed here, giving the reason that the sources Wikipedia considers RS are not infallible. That has implications for this article, but, by the same reasoning, also on every other article in Wikipedia, and therefore belongs on the Talk page of the rule itself. If the rule is bad, and Bstorage has a better suggestion, preferably an infallible source, but at least a type of source less fallible than science, then I am sure that the people who wrote the rules want to hear about it.

Of course, this was sarcasm. The rule will not be changed because there is no viable alternative. Rejecting a type of source because it does not have "immunity to bias" is just postmodern bullshit, a sophism, an empty reason, because the same is true for every type of source. There are types of sources which are more reliable than others, and that is what Wikipedia is based on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling Lower your weapons. You're reading my mind poorly. I was trying to reduce bias. I agree is there is no bias-free statement, no God's eye view. I meant to address specifically the statement ending "...and academics." Some academic exists who will endorse or condemn every possible claim and will have peers who mutually advocate for them and shield them from criticism. So the summary closing statement that Shellenberger, a controversial figure, has academic detractors is a waste of space in a summary attempting as much objectivity and useful information as we can squeeze into a fair summary. Bstorage (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Your diatribe about academics having made mistakes fooled me into thinking that you were thinking the same thing as you were writing, which was the usual "don't rely on scientists, they have been wrong before" sermon we always get from people who believe in perpetual motion or horoscopes.

Indeed, I cannot read your thoughts unless you write them down first, and if you write down something else, you should not blame anyone for mistaking that something else for your thoughts.

The word "academics" is indeed too vague and should be replaced by a more appropriate descriptor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Bstorage For an example of peers mutually advocating for others and shielding them from criticism, I think the prepublication reviews discussed here do a good job of that. At any rate, the word “academics” is used here to make clear that a number of academics/experts across a number of environmental fields disagree with the subject’s positions across the author’s publications represented here, in a number of academic publications, for a variety of reasons (as laid out: climate scientists, humanists, social scientists, etc.). The specifics of each critique are reflected in the article. The lead simply summarizes those specifics, so there is no need to be specific in the lead. They are treated in the article below the lead. If the reader would like specifics, they need only read the rest of the article. —Hobomok (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That is indeed why we originally chose "academics", to indicate briefly in the lede the range of fields involved including humanities and social sciences. Very open to suggestions of a better word of course. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that sentence in the lede is clearly pejorative. I think better would be: Shellenberger sharply disagrees with mainstream environmentalists over the impacts of environmental threats and policies for addressing them. In addition to being less loaded, it would be informative regarding the nature of the disagreement.

It's pejorative and extremely vague, to the point of being uninformative. Also, one of the 'expert' sources is to some no name advocacy group. Costatitanica (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a problem is that although Shellenberger agrees with much of environmental science, his books rhetorically focus on bashing the parts that the author disagrees with. Shellenberger writes provocations. People are provoked. I think the present lede describing him as controversial and polarizing is loaded and doesn't explain what the divisive disagreement is. But I understand why many people will view that as an accurate description. -- M.boli (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this sets up an issue though--that sentence is not to say that Shellenberger disagrees with mainstream environmentalists. It is to say, as the rest of the article shows, that numerous environmental scholars disagree with him. To change the lede in the way you propose is to change what it seeks to convey, and how it summarizes the article as a whole. If we want to say "A number of environmental academics sharply disagree with Shellenberger over the impacts of environmental threats and policies for addressing them," then that would convey the point more clearly, but could be construed as even more negative. In fact, the previous lede was "Many of Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics," which I wrote, but another editor thought that was too negative, so "controversial and polarizing" were added.

Further, changing the wording to "mainstream environmentalists" raises another issue, and one that is an issue across Shellenberger's writing: "Mainstream environmentalists" is vague--the sentence is a representation of response from environmental academics, while "mainstream environmentalists" conflates any number of environmental activists, activist groups, experts, etc. These are very different groups. For example, Shellenberger critiques Extinction Rebellion heavily in Apocalypse Never, and he conflates those activist groups with anyone else he doesn't agree with, like certain environmental academics. At the same time, TJ Demos, whose critique of Shellenberger is in the article in question, also critiques Extinction Rebellion--oftentimes they're not one and the same, environmental academics and environmental activist groups, that is, and there are key differences. .

This is all to say, the lede needs to be specific about who is doing the critiquing throughout the article (a number of respected environmental academics, as the article shows throughout), or it should stay as-is. The sentence's independent clause is not vague. It summarizes what is said below regarding academic reception of Shellenberger's writing, and if the reader would like to have more information about what these people have said about the subject's writing, they need only read the rest of the article.--Hobomok (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Costatitanica, the expert source in question is written by environmental historian Jeremy Caradonna and environmental economist Richard Norgaard, among other academics. Each author is an expert in their respective field. The critique is treated further down the page. As I have stated before here, other academic critiques could be added, but I saw no need to add each and every one, as the ones here are representative. See my response r/t the independent clause of the sentence above, ("Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics") which is clear and representative of the rest of the article. ----Hobomok (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hobomok: fair enough, mainstream environmentalists was indeed weaselly and not useful for the reasons you mention. I think Shellenberger's shtick is he attacks other environmentalists, and as you illustrated he is not very discriminating while doing so. How about this:

Shellenberger sharply disagrees with other environmentalists over the impacts of environmental threats and policies for addressing them. Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics.

I think your language as it stands is a pretty good condensation of the matter. My one small thought is to briefly explicate what the controversies are about rather than simply labeling him as controversial. This should be both more informative and less pejorative-sounding. -- M.boli (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

M.boli, I think this makes sense, and it solves issues that some might have r/t the lack of distinction around "controversial." I think it might also help to bring up and cite the review of Apocalypse Never from environmental economist Sam Bliss in relation to the second sentence, just so that the critiques are complete. Perhaps it would help to just cite some other critiques there as well (no need to treat them at-length in the article's body) just to close out discussion on this topic? --Hobomok (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead changed to clarify Shellenberger's disagreement with those who critique him. Hopefully this solves the issues here. --Hobomok (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Righto! Thank you. -- M.boli (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I've had my mind on other things, but this change looks OK to me too. Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Formal Request by the Subject of This Page For Dispute Resolution

Note: Structural edit made to set off quoted material from argument to encourage people entering the debate to actually read the meat. Edits made concern indenting only. — MaxEnt 15:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This page about me contains inaccurate and misleading information and is grossly one-sided, particularly when compared to other environmental journalists and authors such as Bill McKibben. I request that Wikipedia authors who are not involved in this dispute intervene to make this page as balanced as the one about McKibben and other environmental authors are.

The page inaccurately claims that Ted Nordhaus is a “frequent collaborator,” but I haven't coauthored anything with him since 2015, and the page does not mention that I have coauthored with climate scientist James Hansen in Scientific American in 2017 and in the Wall Street Journal in 2019.

Wikipedia claims to prioritize mainstream publications but the authors of this page exclude both mentions of my articles with Hansen while including links to non-mainstream publications to attack me. I have been covered extensively by the New York Times, and written for the Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, for over 15 years, and yet none of that is mentioned anywhere in the bio page, despite Wikipedia's commitment to prioritizing mainstream corporate publications over activist nonprofit ones.

This Wikipedia page does nothing to illuminate any of the substantive issues and evidence raised by me in my writings and seems aimed at getting readers to dismiss me as lacking standing to write on these issues, even though I testified before the U.S. Congress six times within the last 18 months and have repeatedly testified before several foreign governments, including Japan and South Korea.

The bio calls me polarizing and controversial but only contains negative statements about my work, and doesn't mention the evidence for how my work has been unifying and non-controversial. Why does the bio not state at the top of the page that I have been called a "Hero of the Environment" by Time Magazine and "environmental guru" by Financial Times, "climate guru" by the largest newspaper of the Netherlands, and am the recipient of the Green Book Award?

If I am polarizing on some issues then why does the article not mention, for balance, that I have been unifying on other issues, particularly nuclear energy but also the government's role in the fracking revolution? And why does it not quote any of the praise by some of the world’s leading climate and environmental scientists, as well as leading historians and scholars?

— "Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book. Within its lively pages, Michael Shellenberger uses science and lived experience to rescue a subject drowning in misunderstanding and partisanship." -- Richard Rhodes, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for The Making of the Atomic Bomb

— “Apocalypse Never may well be the most important book on the environment ever written.” -- Tom Wigley, climate scientist, University of Adelaide, former senior scientist National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), and fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

­— “Shellenberger advocates a more constructive environmentalism that faces our wicked problems and shows what we have to do to solve them.” -- Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University, and author of Enlightenment Now

­— "I have long known Michael Shellenberger to be a bold, innovative, and nonpartisan pragmatist. He is a lover of the natural world whose main moral commitment is to figure out what will actually work to safeguard it. If you share that mission, you must read Apocalypse Never.” -- Jonathan Haidt, author of Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

­— "The painfully slow global response to human-caused climate change is usually blamed on the political right’s climate change denial and love affair with fossil fuels. But in this engaging and well-researched treatise, Michael Shellenberger exposes the environmental movement’s hypocrisy in painting climate change in apocalyptic terms while steadfastly working against nuclear power, the one green energy source whose implementation could feasibly avoid the worst climate risks. Disinformation from the left has replaced deception from the right as the greatest obstacle to mitigating climate change." -- Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science, MIT

­— "The trouble with end-of-the-world environmental scenarios is that they hide evidence-based diagnoses and exile practical solutions. Love it or hate it, Apocalypse Never asks us to consider whether the apocalyptic headline of the day gets us any closer to a future in which nature and people prosper.” -- Peter Kareiva, director of the Institute for the Environment and Sustainability, UCLA, and former chief scientist for The Nature Conservancy

­— "In this tour de force of science journalism, Michael Shellenberger shows through interviews, personal experiences, vignettes, and case histories that environmental science offers paths away from hysteria and toward humanism. This superb book unpacks and explains the facts and forces behind deforestation, climate change, extinction, fracking, nature conservation, industrial agriculture, and other environmental challenges to make them amenable to improvements and solutions." -- Mark Sagoff, author of The Economy of the Earth

­— "Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.” -- Steve McCormick, former CEO, The Nature Conservancy and former President of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

­— "Michael Shellenberger loves the Earth too much to tolerate the conventional wisdom of environmentalism. This book, born of his passions, is a wonder: a research-driven page turner that will change how you view the world. I wish I'd been brave enough to write it, and grateful that he was." -- Andrew McAfee, Principal Research Scientist at MIT and author of More from Less

­— "No one will come away from this lively, moving, and well-researched book without a deeper understanding of the very real social challenges and opportunities to making a better future in the Anthropocene." -- Erle Ellis, professor of geography and environmental systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and author of Anthropocene: A Very Short Introduction

­— "Michael Shellenberger methodically dismantles the tenets of End Times thinking that are so common in environmental thought. From Amazon fires to ocean plastics, Apocalypse Never delivers current science, lucid arguments, sympathetic humanism, and powerful counterpoints to runaway panic. You will not agree with everything in this book, which is why it is so urgent that you read it." -- Paul Robbins, Dean, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison

The sections on my writings are one-sided and misleading. The section on the Death of Environmentalism is grossly one-sided and does not include mention of widespread praise for the essay, which was highly influential including even McKibben who praised the essay for Grist. Three of the four paragraphs are attacks on me and my coauthor. The section on Break Through is similarly biased, with two-thirds dedicated to explaining some marginal academic’s critic of the book, with no mention of positive reviews in the New York Times and other publications. The section on Ecomodernist Manifesto is similarly one-sided, with over two-thirds dedicated to attacking the manifesto, and no positive quotes or discussions of the essay’s merits as described by the New York Times, which quoted me specifically.

The section attacking Apocalypse Never is the most one-sided. It is also full of errors. At no point in the book do I posit that “capital accumulation” is the key to environmental progress; that claim is false and should be removed. The book explicitly argues that values and policies also must change in the discussions of plastics and farmed fish; that should be added. The section makes perfunctory mention of the book’s positive reviews but does not quote or even say what the reviewers liked about the book. By contrast, the last paragraph of the section consists of repeating attacks on me by Peter Gleick and other scientists without ever saying to readers of the page what the issue was about or what I said in response. Gleick is hardly a neutral critic. In his review of my book, Gleick defends the Malthusian paradigm that is specifically attacked by Apocalypse Never. Apocalypse Never singles out Malthusian writer Paul Ehrlich who Gleick in his review defends as a friend and colleague. And there is no mention of the fact that Gleick admitted to lying in order to get documents from one of his political opponents.

The page begins by framing me as "former public relations professional" two decades ago without mentioning that I did nonprofit activist PR for strictly progressive, nonprofit and philanthropic causes, including saving the redwoods, criticizing Nike for factory conditions in Indonesia, and advocating for the decriminalization of drugs. I am proud of most of those campaigns, wrote about them in Apocalypse Never, and in my forthcoming book, San Fransicko. Where I disagree with my former advocacy, I have written and spoken about that too, including in my TEDx talks, "Why I changed my mind about nuclear" and "Why renewables can't save the planet." The article falsely describes American Environics as a public relations firm. It was a short-lived public opinion research firm that operated for three years, from 2004 to 2007, did not do public relations and worked strictly for progressive nonprofit and philanthropic organizations.

You can see earlier in my talk chain I reached out to Wikipedia author Hobomak. On our call, he admitted to me that the PR reference was aimed at discrediting me, and he agreed to remove it. He then reneged on his promises a few days later. Hobomak told me he was angry with me because of a critical remark I once made of Winona LaDuke, and because of the impacts of uranium on Navajo. Such remarks suggest a deep ideological bias toward renewables and against nuclear that is not appropriate for editing this page. 2601:18E:8203:86A0:104F:626A:9124:9B72 (talk) Michael Shellenberger

Anonymous IP, I'm not going to go into detail regarding everything you lay out here (although it is strange that you are angry none of the prepublication reviews for your newest book are not mentioned in the lead, but are then angry about your new book's treatment further down the page even though those prepublication reviews have been mentioned). Further, no one dictates their own biography, as much as one would like to (as another user made clear when you commented on my page originally to ask for a phone call, here). There has been substantial discussion of most of your complaints over the course of this talk page.

Most important to me, though, is the way you have misconstrued and totally misrepresented any discussion we have had, especially when I made an effort to listen to your complaints on my own time, and tried to make as clear as possible to you the fact that multiple users edit multiple pages, and no one holds a monopoly over any one page. Probably most importantly, it has to be stated again that there has been no agenda to discredit you. If you want, I will pull up the receipts from the emails you sent me where I explained this clearly. As I have made clear throughout discussion with you on this page and on my own page, when you called me a "fucking coward" and "troll," and you threatened to "call me out" however necessary to get this page changed, I said this is not a good way to have discussion. That type of back and forth consists of threats that you made because you did not like the way that criticism of your writing was added to the page, when previously there was only glowing review. None of those reviews have been removed--only criticism, from trustworthy sources, have been added. There has never been an attempt to "discredit" you, nor has anyone ever said there was an attempt to do so as you claim, on this talk page, on a phone call, or anywhere else. There was also never any mention of Winona LaDuke during our conversation. There is no ideological bias here. I am sorry that you do not like the way that criticism was added to what previously read as advertisement (when I found the page that tag was there). There is a long history of advertisement on this page, dating back to the first talk page discussion here.

Let me be as clear as possible for anyone that does not want to read the text I wrote above: There has been no attempt to discredit the page's subject. The idea that someone said that anything written here was an attempt to discredit the page's subject is a lie. There is no ideological bias at play in editing this page. --Hobomok (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: pre-publiction reviews and blurbs, it is important the author of the views/blurb not be connected to the same publisher. This is a well known COI problem in the publishing industry, and it would fail Wikipedia's RS due to lack of independence. When publishing a book with a big publisher, they may stipulate you write x number of reviews/blurbs of other books by the same publisher in the future. Thus, well known authors get blurbed on the jackets of new books by other authors. One author was so incensed by this shady practice she burned her own books in protest. Since the publishing industry has merged into a few large houses, one has to look carefully to find the connection. -- GreenC 19:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Apocolypse Never was published by Harper. Blurber's mentioned above, who have also published with Harper:

• Jonathan Haidt
• Richard Rhodes
• Steven Pinker
• Mark Sagoff
• Andrew McAfee
• Erle Ellis
• Paul Robbins

That is most of them. The few missing may have also under a different imprint name. -- GreenC 20:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ecomodernism

This statement in the lead makes me slightly uncomfortable:

Shellenberger and frequent collaborator Ted Nordhaus have been described by Slate as "ecomodernists".

The problem is that ecomodernism is not the main ring of the circus here. From what I've seen of Shellenberger interviewed is that the main ring here is ecorealism.

Maybe nobody else has yet used that term, but it applies to arguments about deploying nuclear now, rather than persisting in the fantasy of fixing global nuclear geopolitics while also sparing the environment.

Given that the term is mildly misleading, I'm not sure this is the right prominence for Slate's descriptive adjective. — MaxEnt 14:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe relying on slate for the description is the misleading aspect here. Looking at the multiple sources are on this page (Sze and Ziser, Grist, the subject’s manifesto, Bliss, Dotson and Bouchey, etc.), it’s been a descriptor used throughout the subject’s career, both by those covering the subject’s ideas and the subject himself. If anything, the sentence introducing the term should change to reflect that the term has been used across sources to describe the subject’s thought, and more sources should be included there. Has “eco realism” been used in sources to describe the page’s subject? If so, by all means it should be included, but ecomodernism should definitely stay, as it’s been used for years to describe, and in some cases embraced by, the subject’s thought and philosophy. Hobomok (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we need some more sources here. What do you think @Hobomok? I removed one sentence because it there was no source and also out of place as the first sentence in the paragraph. With the right source perhaps it has a place but not sure...

There is also an absence in this section of voices from supporters of ecomodernism. I'd argue that at least some of that discussion has a place here. Granted, the views in the econmodernist manifesto are heterodox; but that's the point and that should be made clear in future edits. Boosters point to how the approach can be far more equitable than the current prescriptions mostly dictated by the developed world. A possible source could be https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/business/an-environmentalist-call-to-look-past-sustainable-development.html?_r=1

Mulling this over to improve the section and just wanted to put it out here, especially for your thoughts about this @Hobomok AliChavo (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This section of the talk page isn't about the Ecomodernist Manifesto.--Hobomok (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that the section is about the mainifesto not Ecomodernism as a whole. I will keep that in mind and add to it.

Meanwhile I took issue with your undo of the change I made -- not sure I see how that reference was a "topic sentence" and I hope you can agree with me or convince me here AliChavo (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a topic sentence that sets up the rest of the paragraphs, and refers back to previous writing on the page. That is how topic sentences work. It is long-standing material on the page. Please make a case for deleting it. It is not on me to convince you; rather, it works the other way around. If you'd like to make the change, you must make a case and reach some type of consensus here, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.--Hobomok (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Making a note for any curious editors that AliChavo was a sock of LiRedRose, whose sole contribution is related to this page and is here, another example of Single-purpose accounts on this page.--Hobomok (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Some observations on the Shellenberger contentions

Note: This got too long to retain as an inline response, so I section it, and that wasn't enough to I added quick headings.

one foot in, one foot out

I don't have the bandwidth right now to wade into this very far, but I will make a few quick observations. There are twin debates here about process and balance. It appears that Shellenberger has some legitimate reasons to question balance, but I also don't think he has a deep understanding of Wikipedia process. I also have a vague impression that Hobomok is hiding a bit too much behind process and not taking some of the balance claims as seriously as they warrant (I reserve the right to completely change my mind on subsequent reading).

on blurb COI

Where real progress toward resolution can be made is untangling how process and balance are strange bedfellows on Wikipedia, not always for a malign reason. The blurb COI problem is a perfect example. By Wikipedia's citation policy, in order to state that there's a COI problem, that should be cited, otherwise it tilts into original research (OR). But that tends to be hard to cite other than in generality. What credible source has bothered to commit to the public record that Shellenberger's blurbs are an in-house love fest? This would come across as a personal attack, because this practice is now endemic. But if blurbs do run afoul of being an in-house love fest, quoting them without commenting on the COI does not serve the balance mandate. But we can't properly comment on the COI without external citations, which typically don't exist, and if they did exist, would probably come from a quadrant justifiably accused of axe-grinding. What it finally means is that Wikipedia should on principle abstain from recycling blurbs when there's any real controversy behind the issue. This book was guaranteed to fall into that camp. This is why industries have COI guidelines in the first place: the currency of the blurb depended upon this. But the sheer verticality of the modern publication industry makes upholding their old COI norms next to impossible. That's an unfortunate consequence of scale compaction. But I don't see any way this can not therefore put Wikipedia out of the business of taking blurbs seriously.

on private communication

The business of citing private communications between two people who are obviously not getting along famously is fraught with peril. Sometimes private communication works, sometimes it does not. When it doesn't, the he said/she said rehash only muddies the water. And that happens in marriage too, often without any particular bad faith on either side. Can't see eye to eye is sometimes indicative of bad faith, but by no means always, and there's no sane method to diagnose the difference at the end of the day. You tried, it seems not to have satisfied either party. That's unfortunate, but it needs to be forgotten and what remains needs to be addressed in the public process, without this legacy of private interpersonal friction hanging over it.

on source priority

To Shellenberger on the matter of Wikipedia privileging some sources over others. Yes this exists, but not as an algorithm to compel balance by some kind of robotic adherence. The main reason for the hierarchy is to prevent cherry picking wars where fringe sources displace more central sources, at the hands of a tenacious partisan. And really what the MSM halo represents (most of the time) is sobriety. Big central players indulge less often in outrageous mischaracterization, by the principle that people with smaller sticks to swing find it necessary to exaggerate the follow through. You can still get it dreadfully wrong swinging a giant stick carelessly; dreadfully wrong, but also less lurid. Less lurid is a big deal here. Wrong is simply too big a battle to consistently win. At the same time, just because sources with premium citations halos exist, we're not obligated to use them. What to select of what's available is a balance issue, and the balance issue is not a straw poll of the astroturfed public forum, no matter whether it's the NYT participating in the astroturf (no, not the MSM, you say?)

on BLP ethics

At the same time, this is a BLP page, and the person covered is entirely within his or her rights to show up and point out the lie of the land. We have quite a large moral obligation to characterize the lie of land with at least a rudimentary approximation to notional balance. Shellenberger needs to bear in mind that this is a crowd-sourced environment, which is a process downgrade from herding cats. The problem is that pages never stay put. Even the most conscientious editors are only willing to work so hard to find the magic balance point in the face of inevitable future erosion. I learned this lesson painfully many years ago. I went to a lot of trouble to craft some exposition about some extremely subtle nuances (without overstating the known facts on either side) and with weeks afterwards someone had decided that my careful prose was an impediment to careless reading and it was mangled beyond all recognition for a 5% improvement in making the word order more direct. But since I'm a systems theorist by heart, instead of having a giant rage sulk I assessed the systemic forces and realized I was the one pissing up an unsustainable tree. Balance is important, but clunky and durable wins the day.

on the relentless uphill battle of ecorealism

I'm very much myself in the ecorealist camp and my sympathies lie with those who are brave enough to wade into this space, which can't be done without warts. To live up to the standards of the bitter reaction against Bjørn Lomborg when he first emerged, he would have needed to hold five or ten different PhDs spanning widely diverse fields. This was an insanely smug response from academic institutionalism, who really should have been investing more time discussing their own is/ought problem. Most of these physical science people are highly trained in "is" (what you can measure and document) and not very well trained in "ought" whatsoever (nor is their peer review process even structured in principle to do a solid job in the "ought" domain). Economics is a social science which does at least attempt to get its arm around the ought problem (necessary corrective responses), however dismally. I considered Lomborg to have better credentials in the "ought" domain than 90% of his bitter critics.

on the circularity of divisiveness

The most difficult issue here seems to me to be the circularity of the "divisiveness" issue. Any critique of an entrenched divisive camp is met with allegations of fresh divisiveness. Uprooting entrenched divisiveness is necessarily also an act of aggressive divisiveness. I mean, it's a dumb thing, because how much "broad" consensus was there in the first place? You see statements that 90,000 scientists now all agree that humans are impacting the Earth's ecosystem. Really, you don't say? What a surprise to encounter this incredibly broad consensus that Earth is a closed system in many important respects. But of course, as you move downstream from this foundational doctrine of the "is" space, the many tendrilled hydra of the age-old scientific contest soon rears its ugly head. What would actually be useful is that all 90,000 dozen scientists agreed on the precise order in which we should address the many proposed tipping points. Permafrost methane vs ocean acidification, things like that. But really all we have is a shaggy bag of tipping points, and the rivalry to gain attention for your pet tipping point (and the funding resources necessary to continue research) is largely confined to shadowy assassination in dark corridors within the church.

on blunt process

Nevertheless, my message to Shellenberger is that he needs to reconcile himself to Wikipedia being a rather blunt process in the balance domain. However, within the confines of this admittedly low bar, we really should try to to the right thing here, because how we handle BLP on Wikipedia is the number one test for whether this culture will endure in the long haul. Every day I see more screeds (from both sides) wailing about Wikipedia claiming to represent central truth (by people who only want partisan truth to circulate anywhere). Wikipedia does not claim to represent truth, but this "subtlety"—which is not actually a subtlety, but the most important single plank in Wikipedia's mission statement—is never going to gain traction with those masses. If the wedge does finally arrive to topple Wikipedia, it will arrive via accumulated hostility toward perceived caprice in the BLP space. Low bar by old traditions, yet high stakes in the new world order all the same, as I see this.

mea culpa

Well, it seems I've put my neck out there as the resident camp counsellor, FWIW. My apologies that it's a bit of a wall of text, but I've much exceeded my bandwidth budget just getting my thoughts on record on the way by. — MaxEnt 16:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Briefly put: Whenever i see an article compiling no less than 10 sources in the introduction to stress a certain PoV, whereas other positions are almost completely ignored in said intro, i immediatedly know there is personal bias involved. That said, Shellenbergers books have apparently been praised by reliable mainstream sources: the article itselfs states so. I dont understand why this is completely ignored, whereas much lesser important sources - mostly opinion pieces in niche outlets - are prominently highlighted in the intro. Very interesting indeed. Rka001 (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Jim Green Review

I think the Jim Green review might be useful for this article. I note that Green is a Ph.D. in the field and sufficiently active to have a Wikipedia article. Also, reading the review a bit, it seemed there might be substantive and well-sourced criticism. However in the edit-war text the comment on nuclear weapons is the only substantive part.

Here is a slightly rewritten version. The first sentence generic tarring of Shellenberger should be replaced with specific disagreement in order to be useful for this article, assuming people decide the review is credible enough.

Reviewing Apocalypse Never nuclear power activist Jim Green states that Shellenberger's many claims about nuclear issues are based on selective use of expert views, or attributed to anonymous 'experts' or even 'friends', or based on nothing at all. The review also notes that Shellenberger downplays or denies the many interconnections between nuclear power and weapons.

-- M.boli (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Thanks. While clearly a more balanced approach to this particular text I don't think this adds much to the Forbes review in the previous paragraph which covers the same material with better sourcing. But yes, you have picked out the one possible area that could be used. I see that we also have an article on World Information Service on Energy who are behind Nuclear Monitor. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Gubernatorial candidate

Thanks for restoring this section, which I agree does belong here. I also think that the statement "He was endorsed by climate scientist James Hansen" which was removed was not supported by the source given, an article by Robert Bryce (writer) in the National Review. However that source is an interesting one and it would be nice to do something with it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this section should be included, as it is relevant and covered by reliable secondary sources. I do question some of the language covering the current race (ex. According to the cited Bulletin of Atomic Scientists source, Newsom also seeks to keep Diablo Canyon open).

Regardless, this section should be here as long as it doesn’t devolve into advertisement for the campaign.

That said, it’ll be important to watch long-standing and long-discussed material such as the lead and the “background” section to be sure it doesn’t also devolve into advertisement, per previous discussions here at talk. For example, there’s no reason to add archived news sources about the subject protesting a lumber mill, nor is it necessary to draw information from the Breakthrough Institute’s page about specific past projects when that work’s been summarized and agreed upon previously. Including all of that following previous discussions here, at a time when the subject has begun their campaign for governor is strange to me. —Hobomok (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe the "background" section needs far greater expansion, and warrants separation from his career and activism. Since this reply is in the gubernatorial candidate discussion, let's take incumbent Gavin Newsom's wiki page as an example, which not only has an extensive "early life" section mentioning where he went to school between third and fifth grade, it even mentions the family's pet otter. It also has an extensive "personal life" section. My intention with creating the gubernatorial candidate section and expanding the background section separate from a new career and activism section was to create space to provide more personal information, which I think people are interested in because he's a candidate for governor. My hope would be that other editors would also contribute more information to these sections. The protest at the lumber mill is notable, as is much of his other activism—you say that work has been summarized previously, though I see no mention of it here. It's also strange to me why you would take out benign additions for example his master's degree. It could be argued that adding it is an attempt to put the subject in a particular light, but the willful omission can also be considered as trying to create some sort of bias toward the subject. LdyChatrley (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an advertisement for the candidate's political run. This is a biography page. A lot of people announce that they are running for political office, but that does not mean that we need to include the languages they speak or a campaign they were part of in the 90's. The page's subject is known first and foremost as an author, per the article's lead, so the page's structure follows those conventions, which has been discussed and agreed upon on this talk page many times over. If you take issue with the way the incumbent governor is covered, go to that talk page and discuss Wikipedia:Notability there. In terms of summary around previous activism work here, the way that work is summarized has been discussed on this talk page previously by many editors over the course of years. For example, see here. Please refer to previous conversations on this talk page about how and why this has been covered the way that it has. The changes around the political campaign were kept because they contained relevant, notable, reliably sourced information.--Hobomok (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I have read all the previous conversations on the talk page (and I have no issue w/ the way the incumbent governor is covered, in fact, I find that extensive page very interesting and helpful). A "biography" is an account of someone's life, and generally will include a whole range of things, from what they've written as an author, to things they've done in their past that may or may not be related to their writing. Take Steven King's wiki page, undoubtedly first and foremost an "author", and also containing sections on "early life", "personal life", "philanthropy", and "political views and activism". What I don't understand is why you are so resistant to any additions of any kind. LdyChatrley (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The subject's activism and public relations work is summarized, and has been summarized in that fashion for some time. What is summarized are the notable aspects of those campaigns (the companies, the publications, etc.) that received extended coverage over extended periods of time from reliable secondary sources. There is no reason to add a protest from 1996 or campaign from 2006, or one specific initiative from an institute, especially when that initiative comes from the institute's website, per Notability and Primary Sources.

I apologize if it seems that I'm resistant to additions here--I can promise that I am not--I just want those additions to follow the outlined policies. I do agree with you that notable information about the candidate's current campaign, which you added, should be included here. I've stated that above in this section, in discussion with another editor, and here, where I added relevant information to the content that you originally added. This is how BRD works--you made a bold edit that changed the structure of the page. While some of it was reverted because of the policies outlined above, a lot of reliable, notable content was kept, as it should be. There was even information added to it, and it was discussed here at talk.--Hobomok (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not everything that struck me as interesting and that I added was necessary (I do think that MLKJR campaign was strange and interesting) but the Headwaters Forest is definitely notable. In 1999, a reserve was established to protect it. So certainly, the protests that were staged to that end are notable. And honestly, I find the subject interesting, so I was just getting started. I'm only a wiki hobbyist, but I added what I could with the time I had. I hoped that if I created the new sections it would provide the space and inspiration for others to add more. I do think that given the current campaign and the recent writing (he continues to publish books, the latest just last year), the summaries of his past work are now too brief and warrant expanding. Ideally, a group of editors would begin to contribute more to this page, rather than one or two. LdyChatrley (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, that campaign might be strange and interesting, but in comparison to the others summarized, it is just that—strange and interesting. If we included every factoid that someone found strange and interesting, rather than those which sustained attention from secondary sources, I am sure that you could see how a page would balloon quickly. As far as the protest, again, there’s one article on that protest, archived from 1996, and I’m not sure we can say one protest led to a reserve three years later. Again, an interesting fact, but not necessarily on par with the other summaries that give readers an idea of the subject’s past work that has sustained attention from secondary sources.

I do understand that you’re just getting started here, and honestly, I can say that I’m happy to have you adding information on Wikipedia! Sometimes large additions are pared down, though, due to stuff like notability, or they’re copy edited by other editors quickly, or something similar. That’s all to say that at times your edits might look different after a couple of days, but your additions to the political section were relevant and important, and other editors did indeed add to them, which is great! Your addition of the TED Talk link, likewise, is a good one I think. Some stuff sticks and some stuff doesn’t because of certain policies. I hope this is helpful. Is this helpful?—Hobomok (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Editors who have undisclosed personal, confrontational encounter, with topic of Biography

User talk:Hobomok Indicates that this user was called a "Coward" on the phone by Shellenberger. Appearing to have a personal connection with the topic of the biography. Exchanging personal phone numbers and then, what was clearly some choice words. Represents.WP:COIN

Now the "form" of their preferred edit reads like a pretzel tabloid, of events strewn about the page, no context given, no timeline, nothing. Where literally nothing could be deciphered, from it. Other than as an editor, those who are responsible for it, this "article", really don't like him. WP:NPOV and WP:VANDALISM

When an editor finds an article like this, problematic editors are not too far to find.

Coming here after their revert, out of incredulous curiosity of their edit summary, to see their claimed "talk page consensus" in this talk page, we instead uncover that multiple editors have instead tried to free this article from their repeated reversions that now signifies WP:OWN and with this his now attempting to deceive editors!? As they did not disclose their conflict of interest, nor is there any acclaimed "consensus" but the very opposite!!!

It seems about time that admins get notified about this. How this went on as long as it did. Boundarylayer (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

boundarylayer I recommend taking a look at, in addition to other areas of this talk page, the section titled “environmentalist description.” There’s consensus there around language in the lead that you insisted on changing, which is largely the reason for reversions, per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:LEAD.

once you take a look there, You’ll find that editors like hob gadling, Jonathan A Jones, JQ and m.boli have worked over the course of this page to find working consensus through collaborative editing for over two years.

Any major additions that I personally have made to this page took place far before anyone contacted me, and since then, I’ve worked with these other uses to edit the page. Furthermore, suggesting that a user be banned from editing because they’ve been contacted and threatened sets a very bad precedent for Wikipedia as a whole.

Finally, in relation to that contact, there’s been no attempt to hide any information about anyone contacting me. It’s reflected on this very talk page, and I’ve spoken to Wikipedia employees about the incident.

All of that said, my additions to this page have been done in concert with other seasoned users, whom I sometimes disagree with. That, though, is what makes a strong page—consensus on the talk page (or lack thereof) throughout its history as a method for editing (as opposed to accusations of WP:BIAS in diffs (diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1089407666), despite previous discussions on the topic on this talk page, which I’ve now pointed you to).—Hobomok (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That was not a full disclosure can you inform editors here, of the full extents of the call? Including how it came about. As it was not put here on this talk page for all editors to see. You are suggesting during it you were threatened? Not simply called a "coward", which while aggravating, isn't a threat. Can you clarify? As having phone calls, then having further "spoken" discussions with "Wikipedia Employees". I hope you can recognise, represents what is seen as being a WP:MEATPUPPET, or the inviting of others to be? Can you clarify?

Secondly, on the matter of your claimed but unsubstantiated consensus. I replied above but will put it here for continuation of the egregious litany of WP:BIAS in your preferred edit. ---> "Most" is still an utterly uncited WP:POV and thus editorially unencyclopedic, You may all personally think you have WP:CRYSTAL balls into every mind of every "most" climate environmentalist...but unless votes were held by every card carrying "environmentalists", then its junk phrasing isn't it? Your "Most" is just editor opinion from a cherry picked small sample size, of whom exactly - you have no actual idea and neither do readers. So its utterly bliddering. WP:NPOV exists for a reason. You know? Secondly, when a single environmentalist with the credentials of James Hansen endorses much of Shellenberger. Majority or minority of "environmentalists" if they even existed, is really neither here nor there. Is it? As can you think of any environmentalist that has done more than him? There is no bigger head Conch than him in climate related environmentalism.

Perhaps you did not know about their work together. Not remotely a subject matter expert or willing to use a search again? In which case, not least is this pseudo consensus, you keep claiming as if it matters unencyclopedic but your reverting to it is also utterly irrelevant. To what has been more recently added. New additions. That render this claimed consensus, entirely mute, outdated and unbalanced. With this therefore seen as representing WP:OWN behavior occuring on your behalf. You see? From your not engaging with Hansen and Shellenberger working together. Which all makes your reverts and underlining pseudo-rationale, transparently poorly thought out, combative and curiously redundantly blinkered.

Defending a "consensus" that was unencyclopedic to begin with, fraudulent in its premise from the start and inconsiderate to what another editor added, that makes your entire underlying pseudo-consensus mute. Therefore your reverts without substance. As these other acclaimed "consensus editors for 2 whole years" don't seem to have investigated very much about Shellenberger's activities with environmentalists, given readers his uncovered views on them nor mentioned the endorsement of much, if not all, of this and his energy analysis work by none other than James Hansen. Something of not but a little oversight of your consensus committee? Don't you think?

Which to continue, what you are reverting, my investigation into his activities, includes not least of which, Shellenberger excoriating major self-styled "environmentalists" mouthpieces, as all working for, paid by, fossil fuel interests. So of course this handwaving effort to insinuate this - minority, minority, he is in the minority of environmentalists don't pay any attention, might exist, both in the fossil ginning media and of that I'm referring to any affiliated WP:AXE editors here. For if Shellenberger's assessment is true and by the way, no one has criticized what he has uncovered about their funding. Then the opinions of "environmentalists" in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby is something you are pushing on readers, with this "most environmentalists don't agree" malarkey, that is made utterly without the readers knowledge of what Shellenberger uncovered about them. Something of a breach of WP:BALANCE don't you agree?

Making admins aware of this, turning of wikipedia over to be extended mouth-pieces for fossil fuel interests, including right down to an attempted fraudulent gaming of the consensus system, is something that they should be made aware of and would be very interested about. Whether wittingly by you and this your acclaimed "long consensus 2 year bureau", not able to use a search engine and add any of the WP:NOTABLE material I am attempting to, that was instead spent what, quibbling over a single word? While blanking out all of Shellenberger's investigating. Conveniently and no mention to Hansen. This what you would have us believe? What a coincidence.

If you would like to constructively add to the article, give readers WP:BALANCE then you may do so, otherwise what you keep reverting to, is deeply problematic. This Independently of before we get back into this questionable phone call antics, your WP:COIN encounter, that also apparently occurs here. As it is against policy to have phone conversations, for tone is more a conversation than anything both yours and his, that is left out on the retelling. With misleading results. Don't you agree? Of which we would certainly like to know what it was, but we cannot know now, really what occurred during this your WP:COIN encounter.

By the way, another editor above has noticed this is something of a problematic tactic occurring on this page, preventing every every single one of our every WP:NEUTRAL good faith edits being made, mentioned above, antics of WP:OWN and the opinion of theirs, generally making this project an unpleasant place to be.

[[[User:Boundarylayer|Boundarylayer]] (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Boundarylayer (talk · contribs), please read the WP:COIN page you linked in the opening paragraph of this thread, which explains the way to proceed is not duking it out here, but just writing it up for the COI noticeboard. I'd say more, but you can read that page which says it better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Additions to the lede

First paragraph

@Hobomok: Let's go over some of the additions I've added to the lede. The first thing I added is these two sentences: "He is a co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute and the founder of Environmental Progress. Shellenberger has published five papers and books." I don't see what's wrong with featuring this in the lede. It is important to note what organizations he has founded and the amount of papers and books he has written. The papers and books take up most of the article's content, so it makes sense to feature them briefly in the lede. The organizations he has founded are also notable, since his involvement in them has influenced his writing and acitivism. Would you be fine with these two sentences in the lede? X-Editor (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor:, I think it makes sense to say the subject co-founded the BTI and founded EP, as these are major career moves by the subject as reflected in the "Education and Career" section, and they are therefore notable. As far as the number of papers and books he has written, I'm not sure we need the specific number. His specific books were listed previously, but they were removed by another user to streamline the lede, which made sense to me. The lede states that he has written on various subjects, so I do think that is enough to reflect his writing as far as the lede is concerned. The specific number of papers/books/etc., in my mind, is unnecessary. Curious to hear what others who have been involved with this page over periods of time think as well, though.--Hobomok (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hobomok: "The lede states that he has written on various subjects, so I do think that is enough to reflect his writing as far as the lede is concerned." That makes sense, so I won't readd the specific number. That being said, what are your thoughts on putting "Time magazine named Shellenberger a Hero of the Environment in 2008." in the lede? Many other articles list awards from Time in their ledes, so it might make sense to add here for consistency. X-Editor (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor:That too was removed during previous streamlining of the lede, which I agree with. I wonder if its notability is necessary in the lede, as it is already represented in the infobox, and is only mentioned relative to Break Through in the text. Van Jones and Sheila Watt-Cloutier, for example, were both given the same Time award in the same year, and it is not mentioned in either's lede, but is mentioned on in their article's body. Again, interested to hear what other previously involved editors think.

@Hobomok: That sounds reasonable. Would you be fine with it being included in the "Education and career" section alongside the Green Book Award instead of the lede?

Its the WP:LEAD and should be written in neutral summary style. It's enough to say he's won several environmental awards.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a good alternative. What do you think @Hobomok:? X-Editor (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. Perhaps something like: "A self-described ecomodernist, Shellenberger argues for an embrace of modernization and technological development, usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization. With co-author Nordhaus, Shellenberger has won two environmental writing awards." If we're going to include it, might as well be specific on the number and that he won the awards with Nordhaus.--Hobomok (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

How about

"A self-described [[ecomodernist]], Shellenberger believes that continued [[economic growth]] can be generated [[eco-economic decoupling|free from adverse environmental impacts]] through technological [[research and development]], usually through a combination of [[nuclear power]] and [[urbanization]], allowing [[market forces]] to dictate both [[population growth|population]] and [[Consumption (economics)|consumption]]. Shellenberger has won two environmental writing awards.

I see no reason to include Nordhaus in Shellenberger's lead (how confusing) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hobomok:@X-Editor:@NewsAndEventsGuy: I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy's suggestion. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Same here, @Hobomok:, do you agree? X-Editor (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the wording around reference to the awards makes sense here (I see your point on excluding Nordhaus). However, I suggest a bit of a change in the lead-up, if we're going to revise the current wording. How about:

"A self-described [[ecomodernist]], Shellenberger believes that [[economic growth]] can continue [[eco-economic decoupling|without negative environmental impacts]] through technological [[research and development]], usually through a combination of [[nuclear power]] and [[urbanization]]. Shellenberger has won two environmental writing awards.

I suggest the change there just for reading ease-of-reading by a generalist audience (negative rather than adverse, economic growth continues without negative impacts vs continued economic growth generates free from, and the final point on market forces, while true, I think can be assumed from the previous statements without the explicit statement that makes for a wordy sentence). Of course, just suggestions.--Hobomok (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hobomok: I think this is even better and more concise. @NewsAndEventsGuy:@Quaerens-veritatem: thoughts? X-Editor (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy:@Hobomok:@X-Editor: Agree! Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Second paragraph

Currently, part of the second paragraph reads "Shellenberger's positions and writings have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics." I suggest changing it to "Reactions to Shellenberger's positions and writings have been divided. Several environmental scientists and academics have called his positions and writings on climate change and environmentalism "bad science" and "inaccurate". Others have praised his positions and writings on environmentalism, ecomodernism, climate change, and progressivism." since there are also many sources praising him, including an article from Scientific American written by a science writer. @NewsAndEventsGuy:@Quaerens-veritatem:@Hobomok: thoughts? X-Editor (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy:@Hobomok:@X-Editor: Agree w/ X-Editor. Lede should reflect article & WP:NPOV Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy:@Quaerens-veritatem:@X-Editor: This is something that I have major issues with, and this is probably what's been most discussed by other editors over the recent history of this talk page, with the lede remaining static r/t this wording for a number of reasons. I'll try not to rehash what other editors have said above, but I will say that the majority of writing from notable academics (Richard B. Norgaard, Joni Adamson, Julie Sze, TJ Demos, Peter Gleick) largely and strongly disagrees with Shellenberger's environmental positions. There are many other examples of this from scholarly literature, but I didn't feel it necessary to cite every single one as I was balancing the page years back due to promotional concerns.

Indeed, there are positive commissioned book reviews for Apocalypse Never as represented on this page, but as GreenC and Hob Gadling have explained above, those commissioned book reviews most likely don't even have a place on the page. Related to Horgan, he is a science writer, and he's been a fan of the page's subject for a while, very true, as evidenced by him being the one that awarded Shellenberger and Nordhaus the '08 Green Book Award. However, one science writer's positive treatment of these ideas does not deserve equal treatment compared to the vast majority of experts writing in peer-reviewed journals and scholarly presses (notable and non-notable) in the fields Shellenberger's writing on.

Further, some of the articles, like the one cited from WIRED or this one from NPR aren't exactly positive treatments of the ideas/writing as much as they are discussions/profiles on those ideas and Nordhaus and Shellenberger.

The majority of scholars (notable ones mentioned above and other experts like Sam Bliss, Giorgos Kallis, and Zeke Hausfather) disagree with most of Shellenberger's environmental arguments. That journalists like Matthew Yglesias or John Tierney have given these ideas some positive treatment at certain points (Tierney's inclusion here is especially suspect given his beliefs) does not stand up to comparison with the way Shellenberger's ideas have been received by the majority of scholars, especially over time (i.e. Yglesias wrote a piece in the NYT in 2008, Bliss is critiquing those same ideas in 2020 in much the same way Sze and Norgaard were in 2007 and 2015). The lede needs to reflect this, and I think the current language does that well, as another user previously wrote, the word "controversial" was added for a reason, and there was much discussion on this wording previously.

(To note: I'm only touching on the arguments around Shellenberger's environmental ideas, although many experts on homelessness also seem to disagree with his points there as well, according to Olga Khazan in The Atlantic recently: "The problem—or opportunity—for Shellenberger is that virtually every homelessness expert disagrees with him. ('Like an internet troll that’s written a book' is how Jennifer Friedenbach, the executive director of San Francisco’s Coalition on Homelessness, described him to me”).--Hobomok (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hobomok: The sentence "Others have praised his positions and writings on environmentalism, ecomodernism, climate change, and progressivism." does not specify experts and simply summarizes the fact that many in general have praised his positions and writings as well. Even if you remove the Wired and NPR sources, you are still left with nine sources that praise him, which is almost as much as the 10 sources in the lede currently that criticize him. But since it's mostly popular press outlets that praise him, the sentence should instead be: "In contrast, several articles in the popular press have praised his positions and writings on environmentalism and climate change." The sentence: "Shellenberger's positions and writings on progressivism and homelessness have received mixed reception" could also be added right after the former, since the reception to those positions seems mixed. The sentence: "Shellenberger's positions and writings on climate change and environmentalism have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by several environmental scientists and academics." should also replace the sentence "Shellenberger's positions and writings have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics." because it clarifies what positions they are critiquing, since he has also written about other things and these sources are specifically about the climate and environment. Remember, we're trying to summarize the BODY in the lede. X-Editor (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor: The lede has been changed a bit since I've been back on, but I do think that it looks good as it stands now, because as you point out, it represents the article's body. However, I'd suggest a couple of changes in wording:

"Shellenberger's positions and writings on climate change and environmentalism have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics while receiving praise from popular writers and journalists, including conservative news outlets and organizations." This change shows who is praising the writing and ideas, especially according to the cited sources following the sentence.

The only other suggestion that I have is changing sentence on the "mixed reception" to homelessness so that it reads more similarly to the reception on environmental policy, as it seems to be split between academics and popular writers in much the same manner. That is, academics generally seem to disagree with Shellenberger, while popular writers in conservative venues tend to agree with him, as evidenced by the Free Beacon, SF Examiner, and the Telegraph giving positive treatments, and the experts quoted in the Khazan piece generally being critical of the ideas. That said, perhaps something like: "In a similar manner, many academics disagree with his positions on progressivism and homelessness, while popular writers and journalists, including conservative news outlets and organizations, have praised his ideas." This, like the above suggestion, clarifies the mixed nature of the reception.

In summation, my suggestion for clarity and specificity in this section of the lede is: "Shellenberger's positions and writings on climate change and environmentalism have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics while receiving praise from popular writers and journalists, including conservative news outlets and organizations. In a similar manner, many academics disagree with his positions on progressivism and homelessness, while popular writers and journalists, including conservative news outlets and organizations, have praised his ideas."--Hobomok (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hobomok: That sounds much better. I’ve made the requested changes to the lede. All of the problems I had with the article have been solved, so I’m done here for now. X-Editor (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Cites added in a lead sentence

In this edit, after the sentence Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics. in the lead, Hobomok added cites: Ziser+Sze, Bliss, Kallis+Bliss, Gelobter et al, Adamson+Slovic. I partially reverted, and included in the edit summary: ... Please explain how all the cites you added support the sentence citing "bad science" and "inaccurate" in quotes. For example, prove they are used about Mr Shellenberger in https://web.archive.org/web/20050711000747/http://grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/05/27/gelobter-soul/index1.html. Instead of doing so, Hobomok re-inserted and included in the edit summary: ... Those are treated in the body. The Kallios/Bliss article, especially, is a critique of Shellenberger's framing. If you have issue with such long-standing content, discussed many times over at TALK, please take it there instead of asking for a defense of such citations in edit summaries. Actually WP:ONUS and WP:UNDEL make it clear that it's Hobomok's job to defend and seek consensus, but let's look at just a sampling. (1) The Bliss article does not use those words, the Kallis+Bliss article does not use those words, (they merely refer to other articles that do) and so WP:RS/QUOTE was not followed because those words are in quotes. (2) The Gelobter et al article (the one I specifically mentioned in the edit summary) contains an Acknowledgments section "The authors wish to thank ... Michael Shellenberger ..." and many others ... and that's it -- editors may have trouble believing this unless they look at the article, but that's it, that's what Hobomok insists must be used as a cite for "bad science" and "inaccurate" despite being queried. (3) The Adamson+Slovic article is restricted-access so I don't have proof the words aren't there but I wonder whether anyone can quote to show they're there. Essentially the claim "Those are treated in the body ..." isn't about the problem, the articles are mentioned in the body but not in support of what Hobomok has done. And of course the claim "discussed many times over" is not backed up by a clear statement where the discussions about the added cites happened, I can't find them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

See the section on this page titled "Vague assertions and citations in connection with controversy", here, Peter. Also, you'll note that another user involved with forming consensus just recently re-added that language, and for good reason. Finally, regarding the cited articles, the Kallios and Bliss article, and Bliss's review, are great examples of writing that don't use these specific words, but refer to other articles that do because it's part of the larger argument within those articles representative of the quotes (about Shellenberger's goals and purpose in his rhetoric over the last decade+). If you read them, you can discern this. This is about as much time as I'm going to spend in this discussion given your editing history around climate change, climate skeptics, and climate deniers.--Hobomok (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps others will read what I actually described. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

What you described does not describe what you did. You deleted sourced text. Your justification was that not all sources contained exactly all that text. That is not a justification for deleting the text. At best it is a justification for deleting those sources that are not needed for sourcing it.

It almost looks as if you were not here to build an encyclopedia but to keep the incompetence of climate change deniers a secret. But only almost. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling's statement that I deleted sourced text is false. Again I urge people to look at the cites that Hobomok added, and what I said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

True. It was my impression that you did, probably extrapolating from past actions of yours. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Should "mainstream environmental movement" be regarded tendentious wording?

I recently made a small edit to the section on "The Death of Environmentalism" changing the phrase "mainstream environmental movement" to the more neutral wording of "other members of the environmental movement". This change has since been reverted and i thought it might be worth having a friendly discussioin about this here. It seemed to me that the term mainstream (although widely used in a truely descriptive fashion in general) has lately been conquered by actors on the fringes of societal/political debate. The term "mainstream media" which has openly become code for discrediting journalism and putting forward agenda instead. Additionally, the source attatched to that phrase that i edited is no longer available (dead link, nr [34]), which made it impossible to review the claim that the sentence makes that criticism on "The Death..." can be regarded as unanimously comming from a distinct faction of people who can indeed be described as "of the mainstream of that movement". I feel the citation of that sentence should be removed and the wording should be changed to some more neutral wording, given the sensitivity of the matter: both, the matters that Shellenberger is concerned with and the matter of reframing the use of the word "mainstream" in which i feel an article here should avoid taking any part in. Interested to hear what you people think - and yes - i'm new to this community. Just trying to engage and move things forward through my efforts. Thanks for being kind! P. Penaios (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry about this - the link to archive.org at [35] was indeed working, just took forwver to load. (the direct link to the times is broken). The article there clearly states "mainstream environmental movement", so, that case is clear now. I still wonder if this is a good wording to adopt here on wikipedia? What do you all think? Penaios (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I found a live link on the Time magazine web site. Also fixed up the cite a little. --M.boli (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The wording needs to go by what the Reliable Sources say, which is what it currently does.

Also, the Sierra Club/Greenpeace/environmental scholars cited throughout would definitely be considered the “mainstream environmental movement.”

As has been discussed ad nauseam throughout this talk page, the subject’s environmental positions are not accepted or thought highly of by those within that movement/relevant experts.—Hobomok (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This article, especially the intro section, often reads more as a journalistic smear piece than an encyclopedia article. For example, prior to an edit I just submitted, Shellenberger was introduced as a "former public relations professional," even though nothing about his prior work in public relations is notable, nor is it mentioned in any article cited in the intro. Indeed, it's very hard to even find any mention of Shellenberger's PR career. Likewise, the intro omitted to note him as a journalist, even though multiple credible sources describe him that way, and he describes himself that way, and he is notable for his work in that capacity.

I mostly fixed up the intro paragraph, but rest of the intro just gets worse from there. The language is blatantly biased, describing him as "controversial" in violation of WP:BLPSTYLE. It uses valorizing words for his critics, who take up most of the text, and dismissive words ("popular press") for those who agree with him. The point of this section seems to be to tell the reader what to think about Shellenberger's work, not to inform them about who he is or why he is notable.

Indeed, a similar penchant for disparaging language over substantive content, some of it unsourced or poorly sourced, recurs at various points throughout the article. I intend to work on it to make it more NPOV and less polemical, but I would appreciate others' help.

Acone (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been doing much editing on this page for a while, but I would share the broad thrust of your concerns. Part of the problem, of corse, is that many of the sources are journalistic and unsurprisingly take a somewhat excitable approach. The one specific area where I would disagree, however, is the use of "controversial", which was originally "controversial and polarizing". I have long argued that whatever one thinks of Shellenberger's views it is hard to argue that they haven't generated considerable controversy involving widely varying opinions. So rather than removing this I would prefer to see it returned to its original form. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

His ideas have been controversial, but describing someone that way is not NPOV. Look at Ibram X. Kendi or Robin DiAngelo for example, for whom the controversy is a far more notable fact than it is for Shellenberger. Those articles do not lead with "controversial," and rightly so. They describe who the person is, and why they are notable. Controversy around their work belongs in later sections, where the ideas and their reception are summarized and cited. Introducing someone as "controversial" is a way of discrediting them, not a way of giving the reader NPOV information. Yes, "controversial" is better than "controversial and polarizing", but both are entirely inappropriate.

Acone (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed, at length, over the history of this talk page. Everything added or removed has been gone over with a fine-toothed comb by multiple editors. Shellenberger is also treated as a former PR professional in many of the cited sources in the lead (ex. environmental economist Sam Bliss's review of Apocalypse Never in the LA Review of Books, Sze and Ziser's peer-reviewed discussion of his work in Discourse, David Roberts' discussion of his work in Grist). His PR work is also treated in the career section at length. As such, I'm re-adding the statement because it is language used in multiple secondary sources and it is treated in the article's body.

As for the journalist title: It probably wasn't added previously because that's what he has begun calling himself recently (as of maybe a year?), so secondary sources were catching up and it had yet to be added. I fully agree that if some secondary sources call him a journalist, the title should be added. Although it seems even in the linked article that the title is disputed. It not being there previously doesn't mean the page is a "smear piece." Again, the page has been edited, collaboratively, for quite some time.

In regards to the lead section as a whole, the lead summarizes reception of Shellenberger's work per the relevant secondary literature. i.e., the lead summarizes the body per WP:LEAD. Right now, you’ve added new sources to the lead so that “journalist” and “activist” could be added. That’s not how lead style works. Anything sourced in the lead must first be sourced in the body, becuase the lead summarizes the body. Prior to your additions, everything in the lead was a summary of information and citations reflected in the body, agreed upon many times over on this page. NewsAndEventsGuy has clarified this in the past relative to citations in this article’s lead.

The lead summary has been collaborated on multiple times by multiple users. Please review the discussion history on this talk page for reasoning as far as summary language. Specifically, the qualifier "popular" sources in relation to academic sources you contest was agreed upon here previously more than once. Generally, it is because academic critique of Shellenberger's work, whether it be on environmental issues or homelessness, has been negative. The critiques from academic publications/experts are cited throughout the lead and the body, so I'm not sure where you're getting that those critiques are "unsourced" or "poorly sourced." Journalistic reception has been mixed, per the extended treatment in the body, which is summarized in the lead. An in-depth discussion can be seen on this talk page too (see: "Additions to the lede" section above).--Hobomok (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it might be time to remove the NPOV tag and revert changes to lead outside of WP:LEAD conventions if this isn't going anywhere.--Hobomok (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I see no consensus here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

So, I see multiple issues re: consensus here:

1. Currently the lead doesn’t meet lead conventions due to recent citations in lead that are not in the article’s body. For example, “journalist” title added when other sources such as Slate and the Atlantic refer to the subject as author and not journalist.

2. The PR professional line in the lead was brought up. As I clarified in an earlier response, the subject’s past as a PR professional is in the body of the article (with four citations), and it’s treated by other high-level citations regarding the subject’s current environmental work. Those citations (from experts) tie the subject’s PR work directly to the subject’s environmental work. The original poster said it is very hard to find information about the subject’s PR work. Untrue, as it’s in this article’s body and many cited sources explicitly tie that work to current work.

3. The user who added the tag and new citations also seems to have issues with the way the lead is worded re: “popular” vs “academic” sources. This is simply a clarification of how the subject’s writing has been received. It’s been discussed many times here and consensus has been reached many times. In that regard, the lead has changed over time in a couple of ways: first, there were changes you, I, and others agreed upon here previously. Those discussions are available in the archives. Second, X-Editor brought issues they had to the talk page and consensus was reached for changes (namely that reception of subject’s writing was mixed or celebrated in popular presses). The “popular press” title that the creator of this section takes issue with was achieved through consensus and collaborative editing. That discussion is available on the talk page.

Those are the three main issues raised as I currently see them, but it’s hard to reach consensus if no one replies for over a week about collaboration and reaching consensus.

My suggestion as of right now is that if the “journalist” title is going to be used, it needs to be added to the body and then added to the lead, although as I said previously, a good number of RS explicitly do not use journalist. Second, as I stated and reinserted previously, the PR professional has been discussed here, is treated in the article’s body, and is discussed by many secondary, expert sources cited here who tie that work to the subject’s current work. Since that is what RS say, that is what belongs. Third, the “popular press” needs to stay for the reasons outlined in previous discussions above where consensus was reached because editors collaborated and didn’t drive-by tag, raise issue, and then disappear.

If we can have discussion and move toward consensus, by all means let’s do it. If the user who raised issue isn’t coming back to work toward consensus let’s drop it and move on—the lead has been worked on by many editors through collaboration and consensus for some time now, as evidenced by the history of this talk page.—Hobomok (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Trim

This article is mostly book reviews. There are so many, the Apocalypse Never section is actually longer than the entire article dedicated to the book! That whole section is way too long. Other sections can be trimmed and he book articles expanded. -- GreenC 13:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay... Apocalypse Never is a very controversial thing, especially regarding attacs from, as well as attacks on, his critics. So in fact, this issue needs to have a relatively long section in order to reflect controversial discussions related to it. 2001:9E8:AA97:C000:85F4:878E:6BD9:A270 (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverting of edit?

@William M. Connolley: I added this edit in earlier but you reverted it and gave odd reasoning on that the "Snope article made it clear" that my edit is wrong. Except I have read the Snopes article fully 7 times now. It says that Michael had stated that "climate change doesn't worsen natural disasters" despite many peer reviewed quality research has proven him wrong on that claim. So why exactly can't I add this in? Can you elaborate? 49.181.82.64 (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

THe problem is the meaning of "worse". As Snopes says, MS entirely plausibly takes worse as "kills more people"; and they don't. So your bald science-sez-no is inappropriate William M. Connolley (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's tad arbitrary on the wording on "worse" but I understand your point. People can go misinterpret what "worse" is meant to mean. But have you read his Forbes article? Full of self promotion and basically telling people to go let climate change happen as he says people shouldn't worry about the impacts. His words are dangerously irresponsible and people should know the context that peer reviewed research shows he is so wrong. And the people he cites for his claims, are complaining that he misunderstood or purposefully mischaracterizing their points.49.181.82.64 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

And if you read the section on "Apocalypse Never". Wikipedia makes him sound like a revolutionary thinker. However a fact checking website has shown what he wrote and that he misrepresent his sources. I think such info is correct, necessary and highly relevant, and so I added it in, as it was missing before.49.181.82.64 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Be careful if you hate his self-promotion because that's not the issue here, but may bias you. Your that peer reviewed research shows he is so wrong is I think incorrect: you're doing what so many of his opponents have done, which is to confuse the physical climate change with the consequences (yes, it will get warmer; that may well have (taken in isolation) negative consequences for food production; but it is very likely that overall food production per capita will continue to increase; and certainly no peer reviewed research says otherwise. If you disagree with that last point, please don't just say so, actually cite the reseach). FWIW, with Instead Holt-Giménez criticised the industrial farming that Shellenberger advocates, and say that such practises are using a model of overproduction, and generates poverty. And explained that people typically don't become hungry because there is not enough food, but that instead they become hungry when they are too poor to afford to buy the food that is produced I think you've drifted badly off the point and revealed your biases, to the lengths of actually discrediting the viewpoint you're, errm, somewhat pushing. But I'll leave that to you to fix, or not William M. Connolley (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, self-promotion is an issue regarding motivation and personality of an author, and it might be strongly related to Shellenberger's mindset and cultural background. In order to truely understand what an author is talking about, and where it is sensible to question his approch, you always need to know about his basic mindset. 2001:9E8:AA97:C000:85F4:878E:6BD9:A270 (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Environmentalist description

The description of Michael Shellenbereger as an environmentalist is long standing and well sourced rther than SYN. It is true that he holds a minority position within the wider environmental movement, but the idea that somebody who mainly writes about enviromental issues and has won a "Hero of the Environment" award is not an environmentalist, just because they hold minority views, is itself clearly SYN. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"Ecomodernists are environmentalists" is WP:SYNTH, and "he's won a "Hero of the Environment" award"" is also WP:SYNTH.

If you want to claim that Shellenberger is an environmentalist, you need to find a reliable source saying so. "Long standing" or not does not matter because the WP:OR policy is stronger than the appeal to tradition fallacy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"Many" is WP:WEASEL. The Scientific American article calls him a iconoclastic environmental activist, which does not imply "environmentalist". The headline calls him one, but WP:HEADLINEs are not a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Just noticed that there was already a section about this, so I removed my header.

Nobody wants to write that he is not an environmentalist, so SYNTH does not apply to the removal of the word "other". But you want to write that he is one, so SYNTH does apply to the addition of the word "other". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for merging the sections. My objection is that your text implies, at least to me, that he is not an environmentalist. I'm happy with the use of "many" which is explicitly ambiguous on whether he is or not. It also makes explict that his position is very much a minority one. On the whole I thought this was a clever suggestion, but if the wording isn't quite right perhaps it could be tweaked? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"Many" is not a descriptor for a majority. "Most" would be. Also, "many" is WP:WEASEL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I would be happy with "most". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree and think “most” is probably the better word here for the reasons described above. —Hobomok (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I proposed "many" but "most" is better JQ (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm just interested in the fact that it seems that a consensus was achieved that Shellenberger IS an environmentalist (as well as an author), and yet the intro paragraph describes him only as an author and ecomodernist. Shouldn't the first sentence read "...is an American author and environmentalist who co-edited and wrote books..." OR "...environmentalist and author..." since it does seem that he's first and foremost an environmentalist to began to write books about various environmental (and later social) issues? LdyChatrley (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

a consensus was achieved that Shellenberger IS an environmentalist It was? When and where? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

There certainly wasn't a consensus in the recent discussion, but rather quite sharp disagreement, which is why we ended up with the current delicate phrasing which sidesteps the question. Obviously consensus can change, but at the moment there isn't one. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"Most" is still an utterly uncited WP:POV and thus editorially unencyclopedic, You may all personally think you have WP:CRYSTAL balls...but unless votes were held on card carrying "environmentalists", then its junk phrasing that is just editor opinion from a cherry picked small sample size of whom exactly-you have no actual idea and neither do readers. So its utterly bliddering. WP:NPOV exists for a reason. Secondly, when a single environmentalist with the credentials of James Hansen endorse much of Shellenberger. Majority or minority is really neither here nor there. Is it?

Perhaps you did not know about their work together. In which case, not least is this pseudo consensus, unencyclopedic but also irrelevant. To what has been recently added. New additions. Hansen and Shellenberger working together. Boundarylayer (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

And just out of curiosity looking up this incredulous "no reliable sources say he is an environmentalist" special pleading absurdity. 5 days ago. This WP:RS Just did. So this "consensus" has been utterly superseded. Not by editors but sources. :Https://www.deseret.com/2022/5/20/23100404/michael-shellenberger-california-governor-candidate-gavin-newsom-culture-wars-tucker-rogan

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Shellenberger might have been an environmental activist in earlier years, but currently this evaluation might be quite controversial? 2001:9E8:AA97:C000:85F4:878E:6BD9:A270 (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Early life?

Why is there no early life section for this bio? 2001:8003:3631:7400:B0DA:1D17:4FD9:A1CC (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Under "personal life" the article comes closest to describing anything about the subject's early life. And it is confusing because he had Mennonite parents (plural) but a Congregationalist mother(?). "Combien les mamas a votre fils?" (La Cage aux Folles - 1978 film)

In any case, none of Shellenberger's parents are mentioned by name or occupation. His father has been said to have been "Shelly" Shellenberger, a career employee of the United States government. Why not mention this if so? https://www.linkedin.com/in/shelly-shellenberger-44059219/ Milesnfowler (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Parents & cultural background

The only things we learn about his cultural background is "Mennonnite" and "congregationalist", which leads to Menno Simons of the Netherlands, as well as to anti-democratic Jehan Cauvin aka Jean Calvin, related to the Netherlands, Switzerland, escape from Habsburg rule, and, last but not least, a ruthless montheism of Cauvin's parents (i.e. more extreme and more intolerant monotheism compared to Menno Simons, explicitly killing other people for "blasphemic words"). All of this is not very helpful to understand Shellenberger's mindset. How come that other kids with his background do not draw similar conclusions about human life on mother earth? There must be more to it ;) 2001:9E8:AA97:C000:85F4:878E:6BD9:A270 (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

See my comment above under "Early Life?" Milesnfowler (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

A controversial figure..?

Can anyone find support for the claim that Shellenberger is a controversial figure among mainstream scientists? This has not been supported well. Brahman12 (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The sentence that starts with A controversial figure had a source called HorganSciAm. (You deleted that start of the sentence, and the Scientific American source.)

Click on that source you deleted, and you will find what you are looking for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could argue he is not a controversial figure it lacks WP:COMMONSENSE. It's also wikilawyering to require a source that says 'controversial', even though we have one or more anyway. We are encouraged to impart information, and are not bound to exact words in a source. For example if a source calls someone a "thief" we are not beholden to call them a 'thief', we call then a "convicted criminal", even if the sources don't use that exact wording. The information available to us, as seen in many sources, is that he is a controversial figure. Also the WP:LEAD section summarizes the article, and our article clearly demonstrates a lot of controversy engendered by his statements and positions. -- GreenC 15:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would contest that he is controversial with climate scientists. https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/videos/james-hansen-michael-shellenberger-nuclear-power-are-renewables-enough Shellenberger worked alongside James Hansen. Tom Wigley, the inventor of modern climate science, wrote positively of his book. Brahman12 (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This video at 1:18 says they worked to save nuclear power stations, they didn't work on climate science together. You can cherry pick some things, but it doesn't negate all the controversy around him over the course of his lifetime. -- GreenC 16:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

BTW it's disingenuous to suggest working with Hansen on nuclear power is evidence of his mainstream views on climate science. They arrived at the same place supporting nuclear power, but got there by very different paths. -- GreenC 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I doubt James Hansen would work with someone he disagreed with. Brahman12 (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It's no mystery. Look at both of their statements about climate science, they are obviously not in agreement. Your attempt to mainstream with Shellenberger with arguments like "I doubt.." won't work on Wikipedia. You need actual evidence to support your position. -- GreenC 17:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, Hansen tried to talk sense into George W. Bush and his friend-shooting deputy whatsisname! Of course he will work with someone he disagrees with. Stop with the WP:OR already. We have sources that disagree with you! Ah... maybe you do not want to work with sources that disagree with you, and you are projecting? Then you are definitely in the wrong place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

U.S.-Funded Scientist Among Three Chinese Researchers Who Fell Ill Amid Early Covid-19 Outbreak - WSJ Shellenberger is also credited by the Wall Street Journal. They confirmed that scientists in the Wuhan Institute of Virology who were sick in 2019 were working with coronaviruses and being funded by the U.S. Brahman12 (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what your point is. Maybe we different understandings of what a controversial figure means. -- GreenC 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

His substack, Public, is what was credited in the article I linked. Brahman12 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You mean this Public article from June 13 2023? I'm really not sure what to make of this. They did an investigation, got a list of 3 names, which a week later were confirmed in some other public documents reported by the WSJ. Basically they didn't break any news that wasn't already broken or about to be broke anyway. -- GreenC 17:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"The researchers’ names were noted last week in an article in Public, which publishes on the Substack platform, and were independently confirmed by the Journal." A quote from the Wallstreet Journal Article. Brahman12 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This reads as if WSJ confirmed validity of lab leak. I fixed it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This whole thing is laughable. Keep in mind Public is not a reliable source. They self-publish on a platform with no editorial controls.

It looks like the WSJ was doing its own investigation of this story at the same time, arrived at the same conclusion as Public ("independently confirmed by the Journal") and Public beat them to release by a few days.

The problem with Public's story is this: According to Public, "multiple U.S. government officials were interviewed as part of a lengthy investigation by Public and Racket". The WSJ says the information came from intelligence reports (documents). This makes Public's claim of having gotten the information through "interviews" as highly suspect. The information Public released was confirmed by the WSJ because it's true, but what was not confirmed is how Public obtained the information ("interviews"). If we assume, and I think it's the correct assumption, that both Public and WSJ obtained this information from the same source - government intelligence documents recently released - then Public's role in this story is not very important. Public got the same public documents that WSJ got, but WSJ took a little longer to report it because they were doing due diligence. Public released the story first, then claim to be doing "a lengthy investigation" and "interviews". Whatever. They obviously got the same information from the same place the WSJ did, recently released public documents.

Also while it's true Shellenberger is a co-founder of Public, the credit is given to Public, not Shellenberger. The story is not relevant to a biography of Shellenberger. If it goes anywhere it would be in an article about the lab leak theory, with the WSJ source, which is the reliable one that doesn't toot its own horn. -- GreenC 21:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You have no claim that the WSJ was doing its own investigation. Public covered this first, the WSJ just confirmed it. Public did superior journalism. Brahman12 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

If you have no response to The story is not relevant to a biography of Shellenberger, the sentence should be deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the WSJ article? Because they clearly show they were doing their own investigation of the recently released public documents, the same documents Public were looking at, at the same time, which Public claims was a "long investigation" based on "interviews", which is not very believable. There is no evidence that Public got their information from anywhere but the publicly available documents. As for why Public published a few days sooner, probably because WSJ is a reliable source and it takes time to verify and confirm and write reliable stories.

You sure seem overly invested in this "Public is superior journalism" thing, which frankly I don't think anyone in the world really cares about except yourself, and maybe some people at Public. What I am seeing is a continuation of the same sort of editing by a long series of socks - attempting to mainstream Shellenberger's WP:FRINGE views, puffing up his importance, playing rhetorical tricks ("worked alongside Hansen" = agree on climate science). All it does it open this talk page up, which is now part of the permanent record. -- GreenC 17:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the Wall Street Journal did its investigation before Public published its article. Nor have you provided any evidence to suggest why the Public investigation was not believable. Clearly the WSJ thought it was believable. Nor have you provided evidence that Public got information from publicly available documents. What publicly available documents are you even referring to? You seem like you have a bias here. I'm trying to report what they're both reporting, and you're leaping to assumptions about their sources. Brahman12 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

You already misinterpreted "reports" to mean written reports, and now you're leaping to the conclusion that they were both based on public reports, which doesn't make sense. In any event, you seem highly biased and I wonder why you're editing here. Brahman12 (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Breakthrough Institute founded in 2005?

According to the institutes websites about page, it was founded in 2007. However, the institute is already mentioned in a 2005 article form the NYT. Curiously, reading Mr. Shellenbergers page on the institutes website one stumbles over an even earlier date, 2003. So we got three different dates, each used for a different wiki article. Might be good to look into making it consistent across all three pages, hence I will start this topic for the other two pages as well.

Kind regards, 178.115.75.53 (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

April 2004 is provable existence: https://web.archive.org/web/20040407202629/http://www.thebreakthrough.org/about.php .. the domain was first registered in December 2003. A fair guess is late 2003, this is supported by the domain registry, and Shellenberger's comment, and first Wayback capture a few months later. The mystery is why the current website says 2007 -- GreenC 05:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Update Twitter Files Brazil

Shellenberger made a mistake in the Twitter Files Brazil, made a correction and apologized on Twitter. Please incorporate.

https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-noticias/2024/04/11/jornalista-admite-erro-ao-afirmar-que-moraes-quis-processar-advogado-do-x.htm

https://www.brasilwire.com/brazilian-lawyer-exposes-deceit-at-heart-of-twitter-files/ KurtR (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Time 2008 article

I'm starting a new section because the Time 2008 "Hero of the Environment" article has grown into a topic of discussion by itself.

@Brahman12: wrote above: Time awarded them the Hero of the Environment’ award. Full stop. This is not congruent with the source, the Time 2008 articles themselves. They in no way talk about any award, neither do they describe anything award-like. Neither the introductory article, explaining their "Hero of the Environment" batch of articles, nor the article specifically on Shellenberger and Nordhouse, can be interpreted to say an "award" was bestowed. The Time articles profile people and organizations their environment reporters regarded as having done notable things for the environment in 2008.

So instead of "award", I edited the paragraph -- which is under the heading Awards and accolades -- to describe the accolade. I think describing what the Time writers liked about Shellenberger and Nordhouse is more informative. And, by the way, can hardly be seen as biased against them. -- M.boli (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we need that text there? It is already covered higher up; and while arguably an "accolade" is not, as you say, an award William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

“Time Hero of the Environment” is an award. It’s not a feature section. Brahman12 (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

By the article's own terms, it is "[a] special report on the eco-pioneers fighting for a cleaner, greener future." I can't find anything in the article that contextualizes it as an award. Can you point to something that says that? It would be appreciated. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You're abusing this platform and using it to promote an agenda. I'm surprised no one has stepped in and told you such? Brahman12 (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

subst:NPOVN-notice Brahman12 (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of award is " to confer or bestow as being deserved or merited or needed," with confer defined as "to give (something, such as a property or characteristic) to someone or something" by the same dictionary. Taking these two definitions, it is certainly reasonable to characterize the 2008 Time Magazine title "Hero of the Environment" as an award. Even critics of Shellenberger have published book reviews in academic journals that specifically state "he won a Hero of the Environment prize in 2008" coupled with a number of publications both domestic and abroad that have described Shellenberger as "winning" or being "awarded" hero of the environment. Given the dictionary definition of the word "award," the burden of proof falls on the dissenting position to provide evidence that the 2008 Time title "Hero of the Environment" is not an award. I will be changing the description on the main Wikipedia page to reflect the reality of the award given the aforementuoned sources and dictionary definition. MysticMagpie (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)MysticMagpie

We don't use dictionary definitions to label things "award". That is WP:SYNTH. Time does not call it an award, so WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Otherwise I will take this endless back and forth to the administrator noticeboard. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Misleading redundant text reverted here.....NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Having presented zero arguments for "award", brushing aside all the reasons and evidence and Wikipedia practices presented here, @Brahman12 resorts to ad hominem. Viz: You're abusing this platform and using it to promote an agenda. After again re-inserting text which has been roundly debunked and removed by multiple other editors. Is the above suggestion for AN/I reasonable? I don't think I've ever done it. -- M.boli (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If you use a platform to downplay the accomplishments of people, making Wikipedia less reliable and accurate in the process, then how is pointing that out breaking the rules? Brahman12 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is the existing text of the article at this time. How is this downplaying the subject's accomplishments? In 2007, Shellenberger and Nordhaus published Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility. The book is an argument for what its authors describe as a positive, "post-environmental" politics that abandons the environmentalist focus on nature protection for a new focus on technological innovation to create a new economy. They were among 32 of Time magazine's Heroes of the Environment (2008) after writing the book and received the 2008 Green Book Award from science journalist John Horgan. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that the award is not mentioned in the awards section. It's petty to not mention it there where it is more visible. Brahman12 (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The whole page is slanted against Shellenberger. His views are misrepresented on multiple fronts. Brahman12 (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Try the WP:POVN. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Brahman12 (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

References

"Conservative" Label

Shellenberger holds a range of opinions including liberal and Left ones such as his support for abortion rights, universal health care, marijuana decriminalization, and gun control. He endorses the Dutch and Portuguese model for dealing with homelessness. It is inaccurate to call his positions 'conservative.' Please stop using this page as a platform for your own agenda. MysticMagpie (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

His primary concern is downplaying the importance of climate change. His entire public career is centered on downplaying climate change. Downplaying climate change is a fundamentally conservative endeavor. He should be considered conservative given his intense desire to downplay climate change and his willingness to primarily engage in downplaying climate change. 47.189.240.28 (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

What do the WP:RS call him? That's all that matters really. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Does being encyclopedic include respect for facts and truth?

From the article: "offering alternative views on climate threats".

That sounds very much like "alternative facts". And belonging to the "alternative-facts"-crowd is very much what the guy comes off as. But in the whole overly-respectful article I see no mention of that; it's pussy-footing around without ever spelling out the obvious -- obvious from other sources, that is.

Bit of a failing, for an encyclopedia that purports to value the truth, IMO. -- CRConrad (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Bias

This page has been taken over by biased people who are now adding what is obviously disinformation. Brahman12 (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If you have specific critism, bring it. (Your wish to add unrelated stories as the one in the discussion above does not count.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1198838408/1199022298: probably we are seeing or will see students showing up to complain of censorship or worse and then report it back to Shellenberger. It would be a "Grade A" example of WP:COI editing. I hope as part of his "responsible free speech", Shellenberger tells his students they should not be editing their teachers Wikipedia article. -- GreenC 18:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably haven't seen that yet, so the worst is yet to come. The influx of editing you're seeing here is probably related to UFO and conspiracy nuts latching onto this page (see: 28 minutes into this video for specific conspiracies about this page, but the whole thing is a trip). YFRMM (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I have not spoken with anyone on or off-wiki about this page before (other than on this page) - unlike the people in that that video, who actually are behaving like the definition of a cabal. See WP:CABAL. -- GreenC 18:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not a student of Shellenberger and have never met him. The fact that you are spreading lies and disinformation should disqualify you from being a Wikipedia editor. Brahman12 (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

First, WP:NPA. Then specify exactly what "lies and disinformation" you feel should be removed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

One of the editors, Thriley, proved the bias on this page. Removing the title of free speech and censorship expert makes no sense. How is it that Shellenberger has a position on this at the University of Austin and somehow it can just be removed? Shellenberger isn't perfect by any means. But c'mon. Free speech and enlightenment values are the backbone of his work. Brahman12 (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

As of this moment, with your edit removed, the lede contains As of November 2023, Shellenberger is the CBR Chair of Politics, Censorship and Free Speech at the University of Austin (est. 2024). This seems to be much the text you want, so I don't see your problem William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The "problem" of users starting sections with names like "Bias" is usually that the article reflects reliable sources instead of the user's opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Free speech and enlightenment values are the backbone of his work. See Freedom_of_speech#Relationship_with_disinformation. Free Speech is a two-bladed sword it can be used for good or bad. For example Alex Jones, also in Texas, his company has the words "Free Speech" in it. For him, free speech means he can publicly say whatever he wants, truth or lies. And as we all know, he famously lost his case and now owes like a billion dollars or something for decades of lies ("free speech"). So I am not impressed by anyone claiming Free Speech because which side of the sword are they swinging, the good or the bad. -- GreenC 16:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for being honest about your bias and your intention to edit this page not on the basis of factual objective information. The question here is whether Shellenberger is a free speech expert or not. The question is not over whether free speech is good or bad or where the government should draw the line. Brahman12 (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You appear to have an agenda which is in violation of Wikipedia editing standards. This is a factual question. Is Shellenberger a free speech expert? Brahman12 (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Given his multiple congressional testimonies, his journalism, and his appointment at University of Austin, he obviously is. Brahman12 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That's true whether or not you agree with Shellenberger's views of free speech. Please stop turning this page into an opinion piece. It is supposed to be objective. Brahman12 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Most people want to understand the basics about an author. That's why they go to Wikipedia. This page remains filled with people who appear to be pursuing old grudges. Brahman12 (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Whoever wrote 'was also mentioned" rather than "is" appears to be driven by the same kind of bias that has affected this page in other ways. Time named Shellenberger a "Hero of the Environment." Whoever wrote "was also mentioned as" appears to be suggesting it didn't receive the recognition, or is trying to downplay it. People should reserve their beefs with Shellenberger for oped pieces not Wikipedia. Brahman12 (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Time awarded them the Hero of the Environment’ award. Full stop. If you don’t like it write an Oped. Don’t manipulate Wikipedia Brahman12 (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that this article feels biased and containing disinformation: It comes off as far too fawning and uncritical of this proponent of "alternative facts". Was that what you meant, @Brahman12? But maybe that's actually your own doing, since (judging from your other comments here) you seem to be a great fan of his. -- CRConrad (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm having trouble figuring out what is going on here. Shellenberger has little publication record in the area of "Censorship and Free Speech." Arguably he has been writing about politics, insofar as his books encompass his views of public policy and politics. He got an award from a right-wing organization for being one of three people selected by Musk to publish "Twitter files". But I think there is no record from reliable sources of notable expertise in these areas.

Furthermore The professor appellation is a joke. The university barely exists -- it is suite 200 in an office building and isn't recognized as a school by the NCES. The web site lists as faculty many people who are likely part-time.There are "deans" and "chairs" but no academic departments. The label "CBR Chair" describes nothing. Does the name mean chair of a department called CBR? Is it an endowed, named professorship? A real university bio-page will tell you. This isn't one. There is exactly zero evidence that Shellenberger should be described this way in the lede. I feel we are giving undue weight even putting it in his career section, writing "CBR Chair of such-and-such and University-name" has the sound of a prestigious faculty position at a recognized institution of higher education. But probably it isn't. -- M.boli (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Given his multiple congressional testimonies, his journalism, and his appointment at University of Austin, he obviously is. This is called WP:OR, and it is not allowed. You should familiarize yourself with the rules here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Update Congressional testimony table

I came across a document from the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs that includes testimony by Michael Shellenberger titled "USAID Censorship and Disinformation Operations Aimed at the American People." I believe it deserves to be included in the table, as it was published this year and offers significant insight into the operations of certain journalism-related organizations that were reportedly funded by USAID. His testimony raises important questions that may be relevant to the article’s coverage of government involvement in media and information control. Here is the link - https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Testimony-Shellenberger-2025-02-13.pdf Farhadibra (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Photo

Insisting on using ugly photos of Shellenberger is a new low. Blatantly unfair. Brahman12 (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with it, but generally, Public Relations photos are often manipulated (in subtle ways). And they are primary source. They also look artificial. Wikipedia is ideally community generated content from secondary sources ie. someone other than Shellenberger. -- GreenC 04:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

He presents himself as an intellectual. His appearance is irrelevant. His appearance in pictures not a matter for serious consideration regarding the subject of he’s being treated on the internet. 47.189.240.28 (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Screenshots are fair use. It is perfectly permissible to have a photo of the UAP Testimony. This page is being run by hard left ideologues. Brahman12 (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Where to begin?

One sided opinions and character assasination don't belong on wikipedia. If you have a specific probem with a figure than please, substatiate it. "He has faced critcisism for many things." Who hasn't. Has Shellenbeger actually tussled with climate scientists on twitter? I am certainly not aware of this. Brahman12 (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Argument from personal ignorance is not valid. You deleted a para supported by refs. If you think the refs don't actually support the text, please explain that William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I would like to call for more neutral Wikipedia editors to step in and intervene to make this biographical page fair and balanced. The edit that has been done is not a normal. It reads like a hit piece, not a fair and balanced Wikipedia biographical page. It does not aim to be neutral. It aims to present information out of context and remove or bury relevant information relating to Shellenberger's primary status as a public figure. That includes: saving nuclear plants; publishing bestselling and widely-debated books on the environment and homeless; testifying more than a dozen times before Congress on issues from free speech to energy to UAPs; revealing through the Twitter Files how Twitter broke its own terms of service in deplatforming Trump; how FBI, Twitter, and Aspen ran a disinformation and censorship operation relating to the Hunter Biden laptop; breaking the story of the first people to get Covid; breaking the story of San Francisco’s supervised open air drug site and helping to shut it down. Whoever did the edit did it to highly things out of context and aimed at creating a negative perception. I would like to call for more neutral Wikipedia editors to take action immediately. This has happened at least a half dozen times. Brahman12 (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

As an editor you have the power to make changes that follow policy. And you have the power to remove or change text that violates policy. My advice is to look for reputable sources that praise him or describe him as having been unfairly characterized by the press. And you can put that in as a counterpoint. But there are a lot of reliable sources that describe him as fringe etc. And in my opinion they are correct. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

This paragraph is obviously not a reliable source and violates Wikipedia's policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Dolyalskrina makes clear he is biased against subject and should not be an editor here. Brahman12 (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Brahman12, editors are not supposed to pretend not to have opinions. IF so, you are doing a bad job of that yourself. What matters is WP:RS and WP:NPOV. WP:BIAS: "Wikipedia content reflects the biases in the sources it uses. The neutral point of view (NPOV) policy requires articles to fairly and proportionately represent the views published in reliable sources. It does not permit editors to "correct" or remove biases they see in sources, or to allow their own beliefs and opinions to "get between" the sources and the content. Editors should put their own opinions aside and "stay out of the way" by neutrally documenting what a source says, including its opinions and biases. That means that when editors edit neutrally, Wikipedia content will reflect the biases found in reliable sources." DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Editors have flagged this problem on the Shellenberger talk page repeatedly, and the answer has not changed. Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy bars self-published sources, blogs included, from being used to support claims about a living person, and it draws that line even harder when the material is negative or contentious. None of this is obscure or contested. It has been raised on this article before, more than once, by editors pointing to the exact same policies. Continuing to cite a blog attack after the rule has been explained, and explained again, is not a sourcing dispute. It is a refusal to apply Wikipedia's own standards to a subject some editors plainly dislike. Brahman12 (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)