Talk:Ross Gelbspan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV Flag[edit]

I put an Neutral Point of View flag on this. I have not edited or contributed to this article, but it's obvious from looking at the last two edits that the neutral point of view has been violated.

I would suggest reverting to the previous version, and editing from thaat version to improve those attempts at neutrality. Some of the language in the previous edit is loaded, but covering the controversy and citing sources seems reasonable.

Wikipedia places a premium on verifiable sources, and the Pulitzer Organization makes available for publish record the designated recipients. Precedence should be given to the Pulitzer organization in discussing the controversy, but the language should not be inflammatory in tone.

Subjects should not have the final say regarding their entries. Perhaps editors could add some of the langauge from his interviews and opinions from other sources (meaning, not self-published) and the skeptics could find sources other than their own websites, such as the Pulitzer site, to support their respective points of view.

JazzyGroove 00:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the article is very loaded and unencyclopedic and, in all honesty, appears to have been written either by Gelbspan himself or (more likely) a junior blurb writer at his publishers. I have changed some of the more loaded terms, such as "carbon lobby" and "fossil fuel lobby", as the terms assume that such lobbies actually exist without offering any evidence. Whoever is making these edits, please keep the claims SPECIFIC and VERIFIABLE. Name names and provide links to notable sources as evidence. --Archstanton 17:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is very little about Gelbspan himself, which is rather odd in an article that is purported to be about him rather than accusations and counter-accusations made about his book. Let's see some real biographical details. --Archstanton 17:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Have added sources template as a number of assertions are made without citing references. --Archstanton 17:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added references. Covered just about every assertion except those regarding lectures, radio interviews and articles. Doberdog 15:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Blog[edit]

Gelbspan regularly writes on DeSmogBlog, a project I'm associated with. I think his writing on that site deserves a mention and reference in the external link section. I'll leave it to you wise Wikipedians to decide whether that's appropriate or not.

Pulitzer Controversy[edit]

Sorry but the section:

Gelbspan has claimed to have won a Pulitzer Prize[1][2]in spite of the fact that he was never awarded the prize and the committee who awards the prize does not list Gelbspan as having won one [3].
While at Boston Globe, he was a special projects editor and was indirectly involved with a series of articles which won a Pulitzer Prize in 1984 but was not one of the seven Globe employees who were awarded the prize. [4]
Subsequent claims made by Gelbspan and others that he is a "Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist" are incorrect.

Is pure WP:POV and has no place on a biography page. Please read and understand WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content. None of your sources are adhering to WP:RS - or are even close to the particularly strict RS rules for BLP's. So please: either do not add it - or rewrite the section seriously. --Kim D. Petersen 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And i have to say that it becomes even more contentious POV when taking into account that you have deleted well sourced information that could show another point of view - with the notice "Removing questionable and self-serving information" [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk • contribs) 18:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The fact is that Gelbspan has claimed (and allowed others to claim on his behalf) to be a Pulitzer prize winner. This fact is supported by the links I have provided (one of which is to a website promoting Gelbspan's book). The organization that awards the prize does not list Gelbspan as a winner of the prize. This fact is also supported by a link to a reputable source. There is no indication that any of the section violated any wikipedia policies. I'm not sure how you can consider it "malicious" to report a fact and then report how that fact is inaccurate. The section doesn't call Gelbspan a "liar", it simply points out that the claim is incorrect. Therefore, your complaints are groundless and the section will be returned. If you want to rewrite the section then feel free. But it stays. --Lee Vonce 14:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not claim that it is malicious thats simply the name of the section in the BLP - biased or malicious. The section is severely biased - as the issue isn't as black/white as the section indicates. At the same time there is no attempt being made to confer the nuances of the situation - which makes it clear POV. Sorry. Your sources are not sufficiently reliable to have such a unnuanced section on a biography page.
And as i said - you have deleted attempts to make the section balanced - which isn't good conduct. Either try to balance the section - or delete it entirely. --Kim D. Petersen 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets walk through it:
  1. "Gelbspan has claimed to have won a Pulitzer Prize". Well the references doesn't support this - it supports that others have written this about Gelbspan. - out with it.
  2. "in spite of the fact that he was never awarded the prize and the committee who awards the prize does not list Gelbspan as having won one" - this one is WP:OR without other sources.. you could say that the Canadian Free Press Op-Ed by Steve Milloy claims this - but thats referring to a biased source - so that one is out as well...
  3. "While at Boston Globe, he was a special projects editor...." - reference is a blog - which is not WP:RS (see: WP:SPS) - so that one is out as well.
Whats left is nothing...... So i'm deleting. --Kim D. Petersen 14:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: 1, his own web site supports the claim. re: 2, The Pulitzer Committee isn't OR, it is the definitive source for the information. Re: #3, the information is also corroborated by Gelbspan's own website so there's no reason to remove it. --Lee Vonce 18:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry the whole thing is WP:SYN and WP:OR based upon a biased source. Thats against Wikipedia rules (several).
Note that #1 is not supported by the reference - it supports that others have said this - not that Gelbspan himself has done so. #2 is the WP:SYN. #3 is still a blog - and is not allowed no matter what. (not even under the exceptions for WP:SPS. --Kim D. Petersen 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it clear to you that is isn't OR and I'm not sure how you can argue that referring to the man's own comments is "biased". This controvery is a significant aspect of the man's career. Deleting it is simply insupportable. --Lee Vonce 16:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over the sources given, and apart from the fact that they are unlikely to pass as reliable sources (Milloy on CanadaFreePress - are you serious?), none of them even seems to support the fact that he claims to have won the price. Moreover, this is indeed pure OR, particularly obvious in the reference to the primary source that does not say what you want it to say. If you think it necessary, you can add an attributed statement ("according to Milloy...."), but using the editorial voice is completely unacceptable. --Stephan Schulz 16:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You evidently missed the one that showed on the jacket of Gelbspan's own book he described himself as a Pulitzer Prize winner. --Lee Vonce 19:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources supporting Gelbspan's alleged claims to be a Pulitzer Prize winner are reliable. The New York Times Review article is not evidence that Gelbspan claimed to win a Pulitzer, and the other two sources are laughably biased. Reverting back to eliminate Pulitzer Prize controversy section. Additionally, a book cover (which you have not provided) does not constitute a reliable source. Please refer to the Wikipedia guidelines.Dbarefoot 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is on the jacket of his own book. How much more reliable does it need to be? Reverting. --Lee Vonce 20:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of censorship is quite disingenious - but then you haven't gotten the idea yet: No source so far can assert that Gelbspan himself (as opposed to editors, milloy etc.) has claimed to have won the pulizer. --Kim D. Petersen 21:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To echo what Kim has said, Lee's claims are baseless for two reasons. First (and this is trivial, but worth mentioning), he hasn't actually produced a verifiable image of the book cover. Regardless, book covers aren't considered reliable or authoritative sources of anything, least of all author opinion. That's for good reason--many people influence what appears on the cover. Sometimes one of those people is the writer.--Dbarefoot 20:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your denials aside - you are continually censoring legitimate criticism of Gelbspan. That Gelbspan has inaccurately been represented to have won the Pulitzer as has clearly been demonstrated by the fact that the claim is made on the jacket of his book. The idea that the cover of Gelbspan's book isn't an accurate source for his views is ridiculous and irrelevant. It doesn't matter who made the claim, the fact is that the claim has been made. If you want to put in a comment from Gelbspan in which he says that he didn't actually win the prize, then feel free to do so. I understand people wanting to censor this embarrassing incident but it is still an important part of Gelbspan's history and belongs in this article. --Lee Vonce 13:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Lee, you have yet to present any reliable sources or references for your claim. Until you do so, it's illegitimate and doesn't belong in the article. As I'm sure you know, Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. As already discussed, book covers to not constitute a reliable source (ignoring the fact that this has been exclusively your claim, and you've never provided any actual images of the cover itself). Simply put, where are your sources that meet Wikipedia's citation standards? Dbarefoot 13:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this declaration: http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3605&method=full should clear the discussion about the claims of a Pulitzer Prize. 78.42.27.175 (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4808&method=full
  2. ^ http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/milloy091506.htm
  3. ^ http://www.pulitzer.org/Archive/archive.html
  4. ^ http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2004/000003.html

Book reviews for Gelbspan[edit]

For possible use in the article:

  • Kirkus review: generally positive, "Predictably scary and shocking, but still rises to the level of reference."
  • Publishers Weekly, mixed: "at times, he adopts an apocalyptic tone ... that may limit this work to true believers."
  • Booklist (excerpt), mixed: "Denouncing the oil and coal industries as "criminals against humanity ... "
  • NY Times, review by Al Gore: He liked it: "an informative book on a difficult but crucial subject. "

--Pete Tillman (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links for prior post follow:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ross_Gelbspan&oldid=1209787421"