Talk:John Holdren

Full Name

This slug's full name is John Paul Holdren. I can't edit the article to add this though --David644 (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Find me a decent source for his full name and I'll add it for you. The article is only semi-protected so you'll be able to edit it yourself after a while. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You can find his name on a list here:

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2006/cop12/eng/misc01.pdf

And here:

http://www.freebase.com/view/en/john_p_holdren

This is his 1970 paper for his PHD:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970PhDT........71H

http://www.amacad.org/publications/BookofMembers/ChapterH.pd http://web.mit.edu/shutkin/MacData_1124b/afs/athena/activity/s/sgt/OldFiles/all-members.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.70.126 (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

POV and false, potentially libelous statements

Earlier today, I deleted a reference to a Washington Times opinion column and it has been restored by "Jonathan Jones." I have deleted it again as it is very inappropriate for a biography of a living person, in violation of Wiki policies, and it should not stand.

It falsely characterizes Dr. Holdren's textbook discussion of alternatives as endorsement or advocacy. It goes one step beyond most bloggers by implying that Dr. Holdren began gholish experimentation when it states: "Present Obama's top science adviser has toyed with using extreme measures of population control".

It contains 3 reader's comments which are name-calling.

In effect, the Washington Times article is nothing more a repetition of bloggers unverified and false allegations which have been deleted from this biography numerous times in the past.

I would have attempted to resolve this directly with Mr. Jones, but due to the inflammatory nature of the article, and the past history of unverifiable blogger allegations being posted to this biography, I have chosen to immediately delete it.

W E Hill (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm having trouble following your argument here, especially given that you not only removed the reference but also the text it was supporting. Perhaps you could clarify precisely what you think the problem is here? In the mean time I have restored the text, but not the reference. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You are raising two issues: 1. That a reference you provided was deleted, and 2. That one sentence of text that you composed was deleted. You have essentially restored the text (which consisted of one sentence) and appear to be ready to restore the reference, stating that you are unclear as to what my objections are.

I will explain for a third time why I deleted the Washington Times reference, using different phraseology whenever possible.

The Washington Times opinion article not only repeats the false allegations and characterizations of bloggers, but it also adopts them as true and adds an unseemly, libelous inference that is potentially damaging to the reputation of any scientist. Thus, in my view, a direct reference to the Washington Times opinion article is inappropriate for inclusion in this Wikipedia biography of a living person, and should be deleted immediately as per Wikipedia policies.

In addition, please see my explanation for the deletion on the article history page where I said that "the Washington Times article...is mainly POV - it adopts the unverified allegations of bloggers as true and contains libelous comments by readers." Finally, please see the discussion at the top of this page where I point to false characterizations and poor sourcing, i.e. using an opinion piece from a notoriously biased publication as support for a disputed fact.

You have added/restored the following sentence to the Holdren article:

"In 2009 extracts from this book were republished, leading to allegations that Holdren supported these proposals."

I agree that such a sentence is needed, and I have tweaked it to be a little more specific and detailed. I have also included a reference to a source which tells both sides of the "controversy", does not falsely impugn Dr. Holdren's reputation or falsely attribute statements to him. At the same time, the reference allows the reader, if he wishes, to delve into the rantings via links in the article.

Regards, (W E Hill (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

I'm glad that we agree the sentence is needed; it certainly makes the structure clearer, and I think brings the article into the proper structure described at WP:WELLKNOWN. That is, in the case of a public figure who is the subject of controversy one simply reports what has been said by others, providing appropriate sources. One should seek to avoid any particular POV, including the implicit POV of backing the subject: this was the reason behind my replacement of "clarified" by "stated" in one of my edits [1].

The argument then seems to come down to whether this Washington Times opinion piece [2] is an appropriate reference. There is, of course, the side issue of whether your references are suitable. Ideally this discussion should simply be an attempt to find the most appropriate reference(s), which are likely to be quite different from the current ones, and we should be guided by WP:SOURCES, and of course WP:AGF.

Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

John P. Holdren -- Co-Author of Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment

Apparently John Holdren is a co-author of "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, USA, 1977". The primary listed authors were Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. Mr. Holdren is on record as working with Paul Ehrlich since 1969 SunSw0rd (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The book certainly exists (I have seen a copy) and the quotations at John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet seem to be accurate (though I have not checked them all). However they are taken out of context and are being misrepresented. Jonathan A Jones (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

Ummm how could you misrepresent something like that? So he thinks there should be mass sterilizations and forced abortiions but that they should be nice mass sterilizations and forced abortions not mean ones? Jarwulf (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

removal of "Track record of predictions" section

Inactive as of May 8 2009. Archived on October 18, 2009 at 16:08, per WP:Archive. See Archive 1 link at top of this page, or click here Talk:John_Holdren/Archive_1 -- W E Hill (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ecoscience - a modest proposal

Much of the back and forth argument here is not about John Holdren, but rather about his book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. It might perhaps be helpful to create an article about the book itself, rather along the lines of The Population Bomb? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Book excerpts and blogs

I've removed all the book excerpts; this is a biog of Holdren, not a soapbox to post what you think are juicy snippets from a book he wrote 40 years ago. I've also removed blog references, as they're not reliable sources. Fences&Windows 15:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

My edits were reverted with no explanation by Ted8625:[3]. I've reverted back. Clearly these lengthy citations from a 40 year old book are not appropriate, and referencing blogs is also obviously not correct, and edits I made to tidy the article were also blindly reverted. Fences&Windows 02:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've been keeping away from this article for a bit because I wanted to see how a third person viewed it - it had been getting a bit dominated by the to and fro between myself and W E Hill - but I'm very much in support of what you are doing, even if it's not exactly how I would do it myself. So I'm happy now to get back involved in defending your edits. Just one minor point, however: while blogs are rarely good references they can be appropriate in special circumstances. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just stumbled on the article, I can't remember via what route. I hadn't heard of him before, but he's obviously got caught up in this healthcare reform spat, and some editors obviously think he's evil and is going to murder their granny. There's some real POV warriors around, inflamed by the right-wing blogosphere. I know that blogs can sometimes be considered OK, but rarely, and only if the author is an acknowledged expert or the blog is edited to the same standard as a mainstream news source. Fine tune my edits by all means, I'm just cutting out material that infringes WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Fences&Windows 23:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted sentence

In the mid-1970's Holdren supported arguments for giving “natural objects” like trees standing to sue in a court of law, claiming that it would have a “most salubrious” effect on the environment

WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRY, WP:COATRACK

Holdren, a physicist and environmental scientist is notable for his work in the sciences and academia, for his tenure as president and chair of the National Academy for the Advancement of Science, for promoting global warming theory and nuclear non proliferation, and for being a science adviser to Presidents Clinton and Obama. This Wikipedia article on him barely touches on his achievements, and if anything, it covers only the broad strokes of his career.

I am striking a sentence under "early publications" which has been cherry picked by "Conservative News" (cns.com) and whoever added it as proof that Holdren admired a particular law journal article 32 years ago, when he was one of several coauthors of an out of print textbook. The sentence doesn't fit in this Wikipedia biography. It is irrelevant to the broad description of his career given by the rest of the article, or to his current job duties as science adviser to the President.

W E Hill (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Justification for Forced Abortions

John Holdren has openly stated his support for mandatory abortions in "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a book Holdren co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich:

"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe ..."

Furthermore, as described by George J. Marlin on TheCatholicThing.com on August 27, 2009, "Ecoscience also casually mentions sterilants in drinking water or staple foods of those who 'contribute to social deterioration,' the implantation of long-term birth control devices in women who have already given birth to two or three children, and an international monitor empowered to enforce population limits on any nation under scrutiny." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiles33 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There are statements regarding abortion in the 1977 textbook, but they are part of a discussion of alternatives. There is a difference between discussion, agreement and advocacy. You are discussing forced abortions and sterilants in the water here. Does that mean you support or promote these procedures? When a textbook on economic problems and solutions discusses communism and socialism, does that mean that its various authors are communists or socialists and wish to convert or force others into their ideology?

TheCatholicThing is an interesting blog, but it is not a reliable source for a Wiki biography of a living person. Please see WP:RELIABLE--W E Hill (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Note on Holdren confirmation dispute

Holdren’s nomination was approved by a unanimous, bipartisan vote of the Senate subcommittee that asked him questions and heard his testimony . [4]. He was then confirmed by a unanimous voice vote of the entire US Senate on March 19, 2009. [5] [6]

Please do not revert the article again to say the Senate voted 61 in favor, 31 against. That WAS the result of a vote held on the same day, March 19. However, the vote was on the nomination of the Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, not Holdren. [7]-- W E Hill (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of excerpts, again

WP:Talk talk page is not a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic or for adding negative material which violates BLP policies. It is a misuse of the talk page to continue to argue these points or to use talk page as a forum to post them. Also see the discussion above about prior removals of the same material. W E Hill (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

When was he born? Where? Who were his parents?

If he was born in the USA, what countries did his family come from - maternal & paternal? Strictly keeping it scientific. Just the facts... right? There is very little information about this individual, beyond his corporate funding and corporate funded awards.Wiki truth enlighten (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Great questions. I agree there really isn't much material in the article about this man. I recall seeing an article that said he was born in Pennsylvania, and that he is married to a scientist. If I find the references, I'll add the info to the article. Regards W E Hill (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

From a Harvard press release: "Holdren was born in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, and grew up in San Mateo, California, where he attended public schools. His undergraduate education was at MIT, majoring in space science and engineering with minors in physics and German literature. He now resides with his wife of 42 years, biologist Dr. Cheryl E. Holdren, in Falmouth, Massachusetts. They have two grown children and five grandchildren ages 3 to 17."[8] Fences&Windows 20:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Archiving is of course a good idea, but could we get one of the bots to do it by a transparent algorithm? Picking threads by hand can give the appearance of POV. Regards Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid response. Personally, I think that human judgment is better than a bot, and if we assume good faith, as we should, that takes care of the concerns about an "appearance of POV". However, it might be helpful to have some simple, agreed-upon guidelines. I would like to propose two different time criteria for manual archiving only. A shorter period, such as one month, if the discussion appears to be soap-boxing, editorializing or POV pushing; a longer time period for archiving such as three to six months if the material is bland and objective. What do you think? Best regards, W E Hill (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving a section when it has been inactive for 90 days seems pretty uncontroversial to me, whether it is done manually or by a bot (as long as it is clearly marked as archiving rather than deletion in the edit summary), but I am not happy with your suggestions for shorter periods for certain material. I have no problem with the deletion of obviously wildly inappropriate material after a short time. For example your deletion of the large chunks from Ecoscience seemed reasonable to me: with "resource" material like this it can be useful to leave it for a couple of weeks to see if a more serious poster chooses to incorporate it into the main article properly, but if that doesn't happen then cutting it is fine. However when you get into much more marginal areas it seems to me almost impossible to avoid the appearance of POV pushing (the decision on whether a topic is POV or not is itself highly POV!). I suppose you could handle this by marking sections as "to be archived in 7 days if nobody objects", but this strikes me as really over the top compared with a simple transparent algorithm. I use MiszaBot on my own talk page, and it works really well. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2009

This Talk page should not be archived, at least not at its present length in December 2013, because it is illustrative of the lengths some editors will go to sanitize articles of inconvenient facts and thus skew Wikipedia to the point of being nearly useless as a reliable source of information in certain areas, particularly where such information might disagree with certain political views. — Quicksilver^{T @} 15:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

See Also section deletion

Hello, the term czar is subjective and because the list is incomplete especially for science political advisors, it is not good judgement to have the link on this page. In addition, Dr. Marburger's entry does not have a similar "see also" section and a link to the czar list. The "see also" section is also typically reserved for links to pages that the reader would naturally refer to or would like more information about when reading this entry. And this is sufficiently satisfied with the links to Dr. Holdren's predecessor, the categories in which this page belongs, and internal links to his office. SeattleRunner (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Views on climate change

• During a call with reporters on Thursday evening, the assistant to the president on science and technology, John Holdren, said, without any doubt, the severe drought plaguing California and a number of other states across the country is tied to climate change.

"Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change," Holdren said.

Source: Obama pitches $1B climate change 'resilience fund' at The Hill, February 14, 2014

I didn't post this to the article, as this article is posted under "blogs". Author is Laura Barron-Lopez. So I'm not sure the source is BLP-grade. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have only seen that exact statement on blogs. The National Journal appears to report the same speech here [9] and their report of his words makes much more sense: "We know that, scientifically, no single episode of extreme weather, no storm, no flood, no drought can be said to have been caused by global climate change. But the global climate has now been so extensively impacted by the human-caused buildup of greenhouse gases that weather practically everywhere is being influenced by climate change". So I would suggest that you shouldn't use the "caused by" quote without much better sourcing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Press sources have quoted John Holdren correctly (at various length). [10] [11] [12] [13] The passage printed by The Hill appears to be an incorrect quotation or paraphrase. Contrarian blogs seem to prefer the imprecise remarks to what was actually said. — TPX 12:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The Bakersfield News story [14] is very interesting as it seems to be a verbatim transcript of the actual briefing, and so basically removes the possibility that the two variants reflected a difference in what Holdren actually said and a briefing indicating what he intended to say. Anyway it's crystal clear that all the reliable sources are on the same side on this one, and the "caused by" quote can't possibly be used. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Jonathan. Looks like "The Hill" garbled what he said. Fully agree we can't use it.

One could take issue with Holdren on this:

[The current CA drought] is the most severe drought in the more than hundred years of [instrumental] records, but it’s also probably based on paleoclimate records one of the strongest droughts in the last 500 years. And by the way, the drought in the Colorado River Basin is probably one of the strongest droughts in that area in the last thousand years.probably based on paleoclimate records one of the strongest droughts in the last 500 years. And by the way, the drought in the Colorado River Basin is probably one of the strongest droughts in that area in the last thousand years.

but it's not nonsense.Century part is correct. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

For those interested in the longer view here is Holdren predicting a new Ice Age in 1971 :

[[15]] Nonsense du jour, whatever's fashionable. SmokeyTheCat 09:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Holdren Nomination Hearing

Nomination Hearing for John Paul Holdren to be: Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. When: Feb 12 2009 10:00 AM Where: SR-253 Washington, DC.

There appears to be a substantial amount of disinformation regarding whether or not Mr. Holden appeared before the senate in keeping with traditional norms relating to executive branch nominations.

I thought it would be helpful to provide a link to a senate website and the pertinent video file of Mr. Holdren's hearing.

During this hearing, Committee Members hear testimony from Dr. John Holdren, nominated to be Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President.

Witness Panel 1 The Honorable John P. Holdren — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmEricCA (talk • contribs) 06:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC) IAmEricCA (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Holdren. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=701774409966+3+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114121458/http://www.ncseonline.org/Conference/Chafee08final.pdf to http://ncseonline.org/conference/Chafee08final.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Holdren. 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/20110609123255/http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.1142763/k.9419/Fellows_List__H.htm to http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.1142763/k.9419/Fellows_List__H.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)