Talk:Mark Lynas

Untitled

I see there has been a dispute about this page before. However, the tone of this page seems to be quite heavily in favour of Lynas. Ad Nauseam 00:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

POV & lack of objectivity toward Lynas

JonGwynne: "But the problem here is the person's reputation. You can't take the "sometimes even a blind pig can find an acord" approach to vetting critics. Like I said, Lynas is comparable to someone like Bart Sibrel. I feel very strongly that someone who not only commits acts of violence and intimidation against public figures but brags about them later is someone who is unworthy of mention in a serious context like this. It lends Lynas credibility which he doesn't deserve.--JonGwynne 17:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC) - from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Skeptical_Environmentalist

I notice you don't dispute any of these statements? Why isn't Lynas comparable to Sibrel? Lynas has written a book, Sibrel has made several movies and won awards [1]. --JonGwynne 18:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I also notice you forgot to emphasize the statement someone who not only commits acts of violence and intimidation against public figures but brags about them later in the above. Are you defending Lynas' tactics or just trying to downplay them?--JonGwynne 18:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Because he's not a filmmaker, nor a conspiratorialist (he just blames the US)? Wikipedia says Bart Sibrel is: "a conspiratorialist who claims the Apollo moon landings were faked." It would be more efficient if you just stated your point directly, which is that you think Mark Lynas is a violent crackpot loser and therefore not worth a second thought. Tsavage 02:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't have called him a loser though and don't think it is appropriate for anyone else to do it. Do I disagree with him and his views? Absolutely, but I don't think he's a "loser". Violent? Well, his actions speak more eloquently to that than I could. Crackpot? That's a bit over-emotional a terms, but I do think he holds views that don't coincide with reality. The fact that Lynas evidently feels the need to use violence and intimidation to get his points across seems to suggest that he hasn't got any logic or science to back him up. --JonGwynne 07:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Granted, in portraying what I personally took your inferred comment to mean, it may seem more extreme. But I think that's playing with words. If you state things in indirect ways that appeal to mainly "emotional" interpretation, the interpretations are going to vary. Violent crackpot loser was what you said instinctively meant to me, whether you intended that precisely or not. So I guess it would be better to discuss things in more precise terms, for encyclopedia arbitrations at least (though explaining one's own position and feelings as background I think is great).

I looked around a bit, but didn't find Wiki guidelines for vetting people for various purposes. Do they exist? For example, like the precedents for establishing expert witnesses in trials. I've read a little about that. It seems to be based on the amount and type of knowledge of person in each particular situation. So an "expert" may be established on the basis of formal, professional training, but I think also on direct experience (hands-on, self-education, etc), and there it's judged on a factual, reasonable basis: how much and what type of experience. Maybe there's some component that questions whether the expert might be "objective" when called to testify, but I don't think simply being on one side or the other of an issue would be enough to discount someone's relevant expert ability to comment on that issue. And in any case, in an encyclopedia situation, we're only dealing with things already on record, so if a person would seem expert on a topic by virtue of educationa and/or experience, then just about anything they'd already said on topic would seem to be "credible" for article purposes. What do you think? Tsavage 12:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any formal wiki guidelines for establishing expertise. However, with regard to comments on TSE, I would submit that Lynas lacks education or professional qualifications to offer anything but a simple opinion. Also, considering his expressed/demonstrated antagonism towards Lomborg, I would consider any comments by Lynas in either the Lomborg or TSE articles to be inherently POV - unless they were confined specifically to describing Lynas' assault on Lomborg. To take a less ambiguous example... I trust we agree that it wouldn't be appropriate to report Al Franken's opinions of, say, Ann Coulter unless they were presented in the context of describing individuals who are openly antagonistic towards Coulter and not used to provide any objective analysis of her statements. Does that seem reasonable to you? --JonGwynne 20:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable in parts, but also less than precise, so not too clear, because:

1. you're framing the discussion of credibility criteria with a specific set of circumstances (TSE), which makes it difficult (for me, at least) to separate any general principles from the specifics (education, professional qualifications);

We're talking about a specific situation. What's wrong with being specific? --JonGwynne 00:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

You have every right to switch back to specifics, but your last response was to my last comment, which suggested that there might or should be general Wiki guidelines for deciding the "acceptability" of any individual or their quotes. If there's no general rule, than that should be clear, which it isn't to me, which is why I asked (and it's then a free-for-all). If there are guidelines, then perhaps they should be applied here, because as it is, my understanding is that you're only talking about your personal opinion about whether Lynas should be included. Tsavage 02:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

1. your second example is another special case, where both Franklin and Coulter are both...editorialists, who very publicly -- professionally -- purvey their political positions and their brand-name personal opinions; so what does the example mean, exactly: "Al Franken, left wing satirist/author" vs. "Coulter, right-wing author/commentator" -- sounds like an already fair and balanced background for anything they might say about each other? In this case, let's describe Lynas as an "environmentalist activist/author" (we could arguably even say "outspoken environmental activist" based on various statements, quotes, the pie, though that would be attackable as POV, but anyhow) and "Lomborg, author/anti-environmentalist". OK, it may be contentious to call BL an anti-environmentalist, but then what? "Author of controversial book widely classified as anti-environmentalist"? Why such a special case for Lomborg? "Author/environmental revisionist" -- odd but maybe OK? So, by virtue of being an "activist", Lynas is aggressive in some sense, and it can fairly taken that his comments towards an environmental revisionist (or whatever sums up Lomborg's TSE work) would be...sharp. That reflects a POV, but doesn't automatically make anything he says invalid by any standards, other than that comments can not be made by anyone with a demonstrable (negative?) point of view on the topic.

Well, I like being specific when possible. I raised the Franken/Coulter example as another case in which a person couldn't be expected to be objective about the other. Regardless of their professions, Franken and Coulter have a specific history of antagonism and so it wouldn't be reasonable to include the comment of one about the other in an objective analysis. Do you agree? --JonGwynne 00:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, I don't agree. Of course there are instances where Franken and Coulter could comment (in Wikipedia) about one another. They could be quoted "in character", to illustrate, for example, their opposing viewpoints and public opinion of each other. They could be quoted from interviews saying stuff like, "I hate everything he/she stands for, but I don't wish him/her any harm", or "Really, a lot of this is showbiz, personally, I think he/she is great and pretty funny!" And so on... You seem to be saying that every quote used in Wikipedia must be a clearly factual, neutral, objective, expert opinion about something, like everyone's a sworn-in witness in a court case. Which is rather absurd. Which is why I find this remains a loaded example for this particular discussion, that leads away from the general question of whether existing bias can of itself automatically invalidate all statements. Tsavage 02:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This is off topic for the Lynas Talk page. I think the point here for Lynas "credibility" in any context can be taken from the (here, Wiki) description of activism: "as intentional action to bring about social or political change. This action is in support of, or opposition to, one side of a controversial argument. ...often synonymous with protest or dissent. It can take a wide range of forms, from writing letters to newspapers or politicians, to rallies and street marches, direct action. or even guerilla tactics." By describing Lynas as an "activist", a certain "POV" is on record. Any of his statements can be judged by the reader in light of their content, and of his activism if they so choose.

That's all well and good, but as I said before, the history of antagonism towards Lomborg renders the expectation of objective commentary on Lynas' part completely unreasonable. --JonGwynne 00:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

If I display antagonism towards you, then everything I say about you or anything you're involved in must automatically be a lie or a distortion? Maybe if I was testifying as an eyewitness in court about where you were on the night of, that would be a consideration. But if I am quoted in an article, Wikipedia contributors, in a section called, Contributors on contributors, from a quote from a NY Times article where I was interviewed about Wikpedia: "Then there are the JonGwynnes, who never tire of mass deleting, sneak tweaking and, or course, reverting", that'd seem to be OK. No? :) Tsavage 02:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

No, but there are legitimate questions of objectivity and, in any case, it would be preferable to hear from someone without a history of antagonism, wouldn't you agree? --JonGwynne 03:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. Why would it would be preferable? Tsavage 03:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

For the same reason that when impaneling members of a jury, someone who knew the defendant or the lawyers personally would be disqualified - the potential for virtually inevitable bias. --JonGwynne 04:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't a jury trial, it's Wikipedia. People being cited and quoted here have already said and done what it is they're being reported on as having said and done. It is up to the Wikipedia contributor to make sure the material reflects its proper context, and of course contributes to the article. You are in effect suggesting that some sort of behind the scenes investigation be carried on before anyone can even be considered for inclusion. In real world events, which is what Wikipedia I believe is trying to record, all kinds of whackos, crackpots, ignorant ill-informed yokels, and more are part of every conceivable type of human event, Do you want to try and pre-eliminate all the crackpots and yokels, maybe have some sort of a handy Wikpedia:Yokels never to be mentioned page. On that page would be a subsection: Violent environmental activists with no credible background: Mark Lynas. Is that what you suggest? Tsavage 18:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say this was a jury trial, I was just giving another example. Wikipedia policy (and common sense) is also pretty clear that just because someone espouses a view doesn't necessarily mean that view is worthy of representation/discussion in a particular context [2]. --JonGwynne 18:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Lynas other credentials and credits, which may be applicable, are his university degree in history and politics, his authoring of a mainstream-published book on global warming, his extensive travels and other work in enviromental causes over a period of several years, his byline on various articles in major mainstream newspapers.

Lynas' education background isn't applicable to Lomborg's book. His book can't really be considered "mainstream" and if he were writing a book on tourism then his travel might be relevant but it doesn't have much to do with TSE. --JonGwynne 00:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

His education in politics would seem to put him in the ballpark with Lomborg, whose only university education is also in politics (not statistics, or economics; it's still not clear, and the question on TSE Talk remains unaddressed, as to what exactly were Lomborg's academic qualifications for TSE). You're misreading my perhaps clumsy phrasings: his book was published by a major mainstream international publisher; and his many years and extensive travels in service of environmental causes. Tsavage 02:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It only "seems" to. Lomborg's qualifications for writing TSE were good enough for Cambridge Press and their peer-review panel. They should be good enough for the rest of us. Incidentally, Cambridge offered (and offer that remains open to the best of my knowledge) an opportunity to those who opposed Lomborg's views to submit a proposal of their own for a counter argument to be subject to the same screening and peer-review process as TSE. According to Cambridge staff, they have yet to be taken up on their offer. If Lynas was serious about publishing a book to address Lomborg's, he should have taken them up on their offer. Maybe he did and was "found wanting". --JonGwynne 03:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

CUP wouldn't be the first renowned publishing institution to be hoaxed. You keep turning to Cambridge as if they are suddenly the arbiters of credibility, but you don't seem to be able to actually come out and say what those qualifications they looked for and found actually are. You can describe why Lynas is not qualified: Lynas' education background isn't applicable to Lomborg's book, but you are unable to state what the appropriate educational background is. What is Lomborg's relevant educational background? You've already stated that he is a statistician, which he is not. So you're not sure what he is, or don't want to admit what he is, and turn to saying, "If it's good enough for Cambridge, it's good enough for me, and it should be for you too". What is Lomborg's educational qualification for writing TSE? Tsavage 03:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

You have evidence that TSE is a hoax? If so, you'll make the day of just about every environmentalist on the planet. Do please let Cambridge in on the hoax at your earliest possible convenience. As for Cambridge being "arbiters of credibility", the university has quite a good reputation that they have built over the course of many centuries. Can Lynas say that? I pointed out what the appropriate background would be. Lomborg is a statistician in the sense that he works professionally with statistics. He doesn't have a degree in statistics but he not only uses them professionally but teachers others to do the same. To answer your question, I don't personally know why Cambridge accepted Lomborg's book for publishing - I only know that they did and after it did, they subjected it to an unusually strict peer-review (which it passed, naturally) because the university representatives knew that it would draw controversy and wanted to be able to stand behind the book. --JonGwynne 04:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't have evidence that TSE is a hoax. I'm commenting on your citing of Cambridge University Press as a publisher with standards of the highest order, and suggesting one way that a book that may be less scientific and reliable than it seems to many may have been published by such an institution. We have been shown in recent years how modern, prestigious news organizations can publish complete fiction as news, and how that can happen within their internal system, i.e. not just as a freak occurrence, but as a result of human errors and problems with their infrastructure and culture (e.g. NY Times). There are suggestions about this: that TSE was published through CUPs social sciences division, not their natural science division, IOW, the division responsible may have been out of its depth, and also questions about the four-person peer-review committee, assembled for this purpose, and again, of people in disciplines not usually dealt with by the social sciences division. Of course, any speculation can be characterized (by you, for example) as beyond reasonableness, while examples abound of this sort of thing happening. A small group of arbitrarily chosen "experts" can make awfully big mistakes. And since there are apparently no immediate legal or liability issues, it makes some sort of systemic error within CUP at least plausible.

Then your statement that "CUP wouldn't be the first renowned publishing institution to be hoaxed" is irrelevant. In the meantime, there is little question when discussing the credibility of two books (one peer-reviewed and one not) which would be accorded more credibility. As to your impugning of the reputations of Cambridge and the four academics who reviewed the book (a climate scientist, an expert in biodiversity and sustainable development, a specialist on the economics of climate change (whose credentials include reviewing publications for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC)) and a "pure" economist), you'll have to do better than to claims that some sort of "systemic error" is "plausible". Every environmental scientist in the world has had the change to rip holes in Lomborg's book and apart from a handful of minor errors, not one of them has been able to do it. That, along with the willingness of Lomborg's critics to resort to ad hominem and even physical attacks, is as effective a testament to the accuracy of the book as anything Cambridge University could say.--JonGwynne 18:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm also increasingly more questioning of Lomborg's basic qualifications. The initial wave of scientific criticism did point out his lack of experience etc in all of the many areas he covered, but that was kind of brushed aside in the larger consideration by a vague citing of his "stastical" background, which wasn't exactly questioned in what I've read. If indeed, as one, definitely anti-Lomborg, investigator claims, he was only a lecturer (translated from Danish as "Associate Professor" but perhaps more in line with a teacher's assistant our one course only teacher), and that his statistics training was a 30 hour course (like, "Statistics for Political Science students), and he went on to simply teach the course he had taken, thanks in part to personal connections in the faculty (and we all know how much knowing someone influences who gets what job, universally), then it would seem that Lomborg is hardly more than someone who has really studied, say, "Statistics for Dummies". That, I think, would put the whole TSE thing into a different light. It wouldn't change the content, but it would change the coverage the book got, the credibility it was given, and the subsequent rise of Lomborg himself, to where he is able to affect environmental issues on perhaps quite a large, even global, scale. Anyone is free to write just about anything, without qualification...

All of this relates here in one important aspect: You continue to cite the comparison between Lynas and TSE/Lomborg as evidence of how much less credible and qualified Lynas is in this area. If Lomborg's qualifications are not clear, then this whole line of reasoning is invalid. And right now, this is the case, since there is no clear statement anywhere about how or why Lomborg is more qualified than anyone else, or any graduate of a first-year introductory statistics course. Tsavage 15:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Lomborg's qualifications when writing the book are not the issue. The issue is that the book was accepted, reviewed by environmental scientists and then published by Cambridge University. It wasn't commissioned by them, in fact it had already been written and published in Denmark when they heard about it. The fact that Lomborg's critics attack his reputation rather than his conclusions is pretty conclusive evidence that they feel his reputation is an easier target. --JonGwynne 18:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

That's his record as so far noted here. Is it not possible to form a reasonably useful opinion as to the relevancy of his experience/expertise/credibility on whatever topic (TSE or otherwise) based on that?

BTW, was Lynas charged with assault? 22:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Lombord didn't press charges. However, that doesn't change the fact that he was assaulted in public by Lynas. --JonGwynne 00:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

No, but adding the phrase "physically assaulted" to a discription that said he had "thrown a pie in the face of..." does change the tone of the description. If a pie is thrown in the face of someone, in public, as a gag, conceivably, the person pied might press charges, on a friend, a pie thrower hired by the pied's friends, and so forth. That would be an interesting story, perhaps. But if no charges were filed, it would be ridiculous, and, of course, VERY POV ON THE PART OF THE CONTRIBUTOR WHO WROTE IT, to describe the gag pie throwing as a physical assault. So, while the Lomborg-Lynas incident was in all probability not a friendly gag, to characterize as an "assault" without having more background is POV.

If Person A throws an object at Person B with the intent of striking B with the object, that is a physical assault. Whether or actual legal charges are pressed is irrelevant. It is not POV to describe an assault as an assault. --JonGwynne 03:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

"Physical assault" isn't some sort of technical term. If you're using it as a legal description, that depends on the jurisdiction and the circumstances, so you have to be specific. Is the charge for a pie in the face in England, "physical assault"? Is the action still "physical assault" if no charges are brought -- e.g. can a British newspaper write that Lynas physically assaulted Lomborg if he wasn't charged with the assault? If this isn't the case, that phrase has to be removed as POV. Tsavage 03:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm using the term "assault" in the generic sense - not as a legal term. An attack of one person by another may properly (and objectively) be described as an assault even if no legal charged were brought. --JonGwynne 04:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

You're exactly right: it MAY be used, it is one alternative for a general description of this event. "Pie thrown in the face" is also a description, and a more detailed, factual, therefore, more accurate one. There are other alternatives, of which you chose one. In referring back to the initial description, "attack" is also used. This is only one possible choice as well, "attack" could be replaced by "the aforementioned pie-throwing", etc. But, editorially, it seems, in context, that attack may contribute to conveying the accurate impression. It is editorializing, but "attack" has a wider range of common usage: "the cute little kids in snowsuits attacked the snow fort", but not so much, "the cute little kids in snowsuits assaulted the snow fort". Perhaps using the word "attack" adds to the reading interest, and helps convey the possibility of a stronger negative component to the incident than "pie-throwing" alone. (Of course, an eyewitness or video of the event would help clarify the reactions during the attack; in that case, there would be better criteria for selecting the most appropriate wordind.) "Physical assault" ("the cute kids physically attacked", "the cute kids physically assaulted") further increases the bias towards a violent, negative impression, which is not at all indicated otherwise. It is also somewhat redundant in a pedantic way. So your deliberate choice (you added the phrase after the fact of the original) of "physically assault" clearly alters the sense of the report in a way that is not supported by the facts, but intended by you. I believe that selecting a phrase in order to introduces an emotional reaction, and when other factually equal alternatives exist, is a textbook case of POV writing. Wouldn't you agree. Tsavage 17:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the "pie in the face" description has inescacapable connotations associated with farce and comedy. It is impossible to report someone throwing a pie in someone else's face without creating the impression that it was a joke or lighthearted prank. Lynas isn't the only one to engage in this tactic. Many violent activists attempt to disguise their violence by using the "pie in the face" diversion in order to either draw attention away from the seriousness of their attacks or to make them seem "cute" or "nonthreatening". Personally, I think it is a reprehensible act and shows the vile and digusting nature of the individuals who engage in such activities. Hmmm, maybe I should write an article about this phenomenon... --JonGwynne 18:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial: It's possible to introduce your own bias even while attributing. Take this sentence as an example: "Duane Gish said that the Earth and its living creatures were created by God." This is a neutral statement as it stands. But what if "said" were substituted with: noted, explained, pointed out, claimed, suggested. All have different connotations, which could introduce bias, depending on context.

Lynas threw a cream pie in Lomborg's face creates quite a different impression than Lynas physically assaulted Lomborg by throwing a pie in his face. The latter embellishes the basic fact of the pie throwing reported in the former, and creates an impression of perhaps greater violence and malice than existed. It is unnecessary. If Lyans was charged, Lynas was charged with assault [or whatever the specific charge] after throwing a pie might be OK, but still seems biased if the purpose is to record one action of an activist, as opposed to the action of a serial criminal, or the criminal history of an activist. Lynas pied him. He was arrested and charged with assault would seem to me the most NPOV. In fact, though, all we know is that he threw a pie in a face... Tsavage 02:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, you're trying to downplay the assault by focussing on the pie and making it seem like some lighthearted banter between the two of them. Lynas didn't protest or heckle Lomborg, Lynas assaulted him. Some people may think it cute or clever or whatever, but it isn't. --JonGwynne 03:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to meet the standards of NPOV. What is there to downplay? You mean, you added that to clarify the legal status of the pie-throwing? What more is added to the description of the pie throwing incident by the addition of that phrase? Does it clarify a distinction between pie throwing that is physical assault and pie throwing that is not. Is it a record of legal charge brought against Lynas - if so, make that explicit? After saying, "threw a pie in the face of" what more is there to add? If you can't answer these questions satisfactorily, the phrase will have to be removed. Tsavage 03:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to explain... I didn't add the term "assault" to "clarify the legal status", I added it as a description of the act. Even if I knew what the legal status was (i.e. whether or not Lomborg filed a formal complaint with the police), I am not a lawyer so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on the legal status of the case. I can, however, describe an attack of one person by another as an assault in the purely general sense of the word. --JonGwynne 04:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

PS: Isn't NPOV a rule and caution for Wikipedia CONTRIBUTORS, not for Wikipedia CONTENT. An article that incorporates quotes to unfairly create a POV is...invalid because that is the work of the contributor (the editing of the quotes, and the context in which they are place). Quotes themselves cannot be Wiki NPOV, the NPOV concept doesn't even extend there. Right? Tsavage 22:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It is for both. The inclusion of quotes from certain sources would, depending on the context, be considered inherently POV (and therefore inappropriate). Including quotes from Lynas on Lomborg's pages would be an example of this. --JonGwynne 00:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything to substantiate that on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. One section seems to clarify this issue and address the idea exclusions:

1. What is the neutral point of view?: First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange. -- I've highlighted a couple of bits, but the entire excerpt applies.

There are other areas that may conceivably apply to this particular instance, that you may wish to cite, such as dealing with minority viewpoints, and the Pseudoscience section. Also, on Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, there is a section on Expertise which basically sets out the kind of "expert witness" criteria I mentioned earlier. However, I don't find these or anything else on those pages that says a person's quotes in and of themselves can make an article POV, in in the way the Wikipedia contributor uses them.

I started the Mark Lynas page because, if he is to be quoted, he should have some stature, not be "anyone" whose name and quote have been dug up or made up. IOW, his name appears in the TSE article, therefore, there should be a Wikipedia article on him. Now, if THIS Lynas article can be made a candidate for removal or whatever, and he's removed, then that would, I think, effectively prove your point. Otherwise, he is, for quoting purposes, a bona fide source, provided his comments make sense and add to the article they are used in. (Specific discussion of Lynas relevance to TSE should be/is being discussed on that articles Talk page.) Tsavage 02:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, I have no objection to an article on Lynas and I think you were correct to add one. Whether or not I consider him particularly noteworthy, I have no personal objection to wikipedia being used to document otherwise obscure things and individuals. So, knock yourself out; write 50,000 words on him if you want. However, that doesn't make what he says relevant to TSE or Bjorn Lomborg. That's my only point. --JonGwynne 04:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

"physical assault" edit

I have edited the entry documenting the Lynas pie throwing incident, to remove the "physically assaulted" description, added to the original entry by JonGwynne. I determined this to be a POV entry, designed to portray the incident and Mark Lynas in as negative a light as possible. My reasons:

• Not a legal description: There has been no information presented that Lynas was charged with a crime, or that a legal name for the act was determined. Therefore, there are no grounds other than editorial preference for any particular choice of wording to describe the pie-throwing.
• Does not add new information: "Throwing a pie in the face of..." provides a complete and neutral description of the act. "Physically assault" modifies this description, but does not provide new detail, it only affects the impression of the reader by focussing on violence and bodily harm.
• "Pie throwing" provides most accurate characterization: Specifically describing the act as "pie throwing" identifies the act as a widely recognized way to publicly express disapproval, cause a stir, publicly embarrass someone, and gain attention for the reason behind the pie attack. Given that Lynas is an avowed activist, it is emininently reasonable to interpret this pie throwing as done for these traditional reasons, as a political gesture (and not as an assault with an odd and ineffectual weapon and the intention to bash Lomborg's head in).
• Author's stated bias: On this topic, the author of the "physically assaulted" edit, JonGwynne, repeatedly stated his negative bias towards Lynas, with specific reference to the pie throwing: I feel very strongly that someone who not only commits acts of violence and intimidation against public figures but brags about them later is someone who is unworthy of mention in a serious context. This to me eliminated doubt that the addition of the physical assault comment might be intended to add some other dimension to the article, other than trying to associate the event with violent crime, and thereby emotionally influence readers.

With this edit, there is no intention on my part to condone Lynas' actions by editorializing through omission: the attempt is to report them in a fair and neutral manner.

If Lynas had been (or was) arrested, that fact can and should be fairly noted: the charge entered and the details recorded. That charge might be "physical assault" or "grievous bodily harm" or some such. Presented in its legal context, it would add fairly to the proceedings. However, even in that case, the wording as edited, saying "Lynas physically assaulted Lomborg by throwing..." would still in my opinion be unfairly biased, i.e. POV. There are fairly well established conventions in the media for reporting on protests and their aftermaths: "Protestors demonstrate. Protestors arrested. Protestors charged. Protestor deal with the results of arrests: pay fine, get released, etc." The initial reports do not generally attempt to characterize the events in their most criminal light and negative light. This approach to reportage (found in "democratic Western media", at least) is used to acknowledge that within reason certain "crimes" (criminal acts) resulting from a protest or demonstration are considered by society to be somewhat different from when those crimes are committed for other reasons. To a degree, the coverage of protests acknowledges that we accept protest to a point as a social good. In cases where the negative effects of an act of protest are focussed on, these are usually of a severe nature: death, injury, property distruction -- not pie throwing. Using "physical assault" out of this normal usage thus creates an effect that I find to be deliberate editorial bias. Tsavage 13:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong. Lynas did assault Lomborg - whether or not he was charged with a crime in connection with this assault is irrelevant to whether or not the assault took place.--JonGwynne 18:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you are perfectly right to start a "pie throwing as political protest" article, rather than insert it here. I presume you have some interesting stuff. I agree with you that in many instances, violence and ends-justifies-the-means behavior is...abhorrent. It is an easy position to take when you're not on the front line (everything that's really fought for usually gets fought on a physical level at some point), but I still "feel" that way. Like the American animal rights guy just in the news saying it was OK to kill hunters and animal testers, if that's what it took to stop animal torture. That I personally find ridiculous, but these topics are always armchair until you're actually in the thick of it, don't you find?

I agree, but I don't consider people like Lynas to be "in the thick of it". I know people who have been threatened by nutcases (environmental and otherwise) and it isn't a nice thing. But I think we do agree one one thing: people who use violence as a tool are... well... "tools".  ;-> The only thing worse that people who use violence as a means of advancing their adgenda are those who use violence and then either rationalize it or try to pretend that it isn't violence. --JonGwynne 03:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

And yes, maybe the Baked Alaska should be removed or attributed. An accurately and forcefully thrown slab of frozen food could do some damage. Tsavage 19:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Editing down of Lynas quote re Lomborg pie-ing

I will get back to this and restore it and so note here when I do. However, in advance, I think you are blurring this Lynas page with the TSE debate. Removing the part of the quote you did I think substantially reduces the quality of this Mark Lynas article. His somewhat strident, rant-esque explanation/justification of the pie incident gives a sense of what he is like, at least, politically. It speaks to your feelings that he is distasteful in his extremism. At the very least, it fills out, for this one individual, the meaning of calling him an activist. Don't forget, this isn't a Lomborg/TSE page, there's no POV on that count involved here. BTW, like it or not, you know that High Tide is quite interesting and from its own particular angle, if you've taken a look... Tsavage 19:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I removed the rant because doing to improve the article. This article shouldn't be a soap-box for Lynas, it should confine itself to describing him and his actions. It is enough to leave the "smug face" section of the quote in order to give an accurate depiction of his personality and attitude. The rationalization and irrelevant speculation add nothing. --JonGwynne 03:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the rest of that quote. OK, the "rant" maybe gets distracting, going off as it does into detail on a whole other topic, and the Baked Alaska bit is maybe contrived, if it wasn't a Baked Alaska, making it SEEM more soap box rhetoric, less representative of any one individual's personality. I mean, that's definitely an argument for the brief article as it is now. Perhaps it needs a section of Lynas' public statements and manifestos...! Anyhow, I removed the rest of that quote as well, because I find ending on "smug face" as a short snapper, out of context of the rest of the quote, is also leading for the reader, and "pies for damn lies" seems to strike a good balance between in indicating angry self-righteous tone and sloganeering. Or whatever. (Who would have thought so much could be discussed in such detail for such a so far short article about an, according to some, obscure and meaningless guy?!) Tsavage 13:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed... Lynas should send us both Christmas cards to thank us for elevating him in this regard. As for the "smug" section, I don't have a problem with that part because it is his statement as to why he did it. The rest of his rant is secondary (and arguably a rationalization) to his stated antagonism towards Lomborg. So if you want to put the "smug" bit back, that's fine.--JonGwynne 00:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Lynas and pies

Seems to be a lot of fuss about a baked alaska; one would hardly call that assaultDatapanik 10:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV rewrite

I rewrote the latter paragraphs about Lynas' books to read less like advertisements for them, and removed the direct quotes (which were unsourced in any case). I believe the article now meets NPOV standard, and will remove the POV tag - if you disagree, please explain what more you think needs to be done. Terraxos 05:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

New article on Lynas at Guardian

Has the green movement lost its way?, by S. Rustin, 7/2/11. Should be good for expanding the article. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bjorn Lomborg

This article refers to Bjorn Lomborg in passing as an environmentalist. Bjorn Lomborg is in no way an environmentalist. His work is strongly anti-environmental. I would simply suggest deleting the reference to Bjorn Lomborg in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.126.71 (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Conversion criticism

I've changed the sentence to:

"However, the scientific bases for his conversion have been called into question by GM-Free Cymru and UC Davis philosophy professor Roberta L. Millstein."

You need to include where criticism is coming from, and not simply make a claim that he's being criticized. I'm not even sure if the blog Millstein is posting on is an acceptable source. I'm sympathetic since she's a professor at a good college, but I doubt she has any real qualifications to be discussing GMOs. Also, the description "the scientific bases for his conversion have been called into question" is neither helpful nor enlightening. Reasons for his conversion should be given as well as specific criticisms by these two sources, otherwise this description provides us no more understanding other than a statement to the effect "some people disagree with him".OakRunner (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed by the recent additions as well as the acerbity towards the subject of this article in two of the sources used, this newappls blog post and this GM-Free Cymru post. Until such a time as a reliable sources make it clear that the scientific bases for Lynas' conversion are at all notable this article will not become an accessory battleground to debate GMOs, nor will blogs become an appropiate venue to cite for information on the science behind GMOs. The criticism towards Lynas as well as the conspiracy-tinged insinuation by Millstein of an association with the lobbying industry are clear violations of WP:SELFPUBLISH:

• Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

I take no issue with the inclusion of the article by the Guardian and Lynas' response, but the above mentioned sources are inappropriate for inclusion in this article.OakRunner (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This man was interviewed on BBC "Hard Talk" broadcast on the World Service on 31/01/2013 stating that Nuclear Power was safe. He argued that no one has died due to (the continuing) radiation release at the Fukushima site and that life was thriving surrounding the Chernobyl site. Based on the BBC Hard Talk interview alone, this man has no credibility. He has clearly been bought and paid for by the corporations that he once attacked. This man's irrational flip flop positioned should be reflected in the first paragraph. He surely carries little credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.155.26 (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has died from Fukushima. The workers got exposed to a lot of radiation, and are more likely to develop cancer from it later in life, and contamination of the land around it will prevent it from being cultivated due to fears of people getting sick, but as of now nobody has died from radiation poisoning from Fukushima. As for life surviving around Chernobyl, I have no issues believing that, life is extremely hardy and can survive many things that would be dangerous for humans. I wouldn't go eating anything growing around there though...OakRunner (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Education?

I see a mention above in the talk page that Lynas has 'his university degree in history and politics' but no further info. Is this information covered in any RS sources?Dialectric (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Lynas. 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/20080324180834/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/sixdegrees/ to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/sixdegrees/

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) 11:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Mark Lynas ESC2017.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)