Talk:Michael Shellenberger

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)

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)

[1] "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)

[2] "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)

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)

Disruptive editing, edit warring, and 3 revert rule

The latest round of editing when the subject just announced his candidacy is not "strange" as the announcement would obviously attract more, newer editors. The reversion of page edits in the last 24 hours is against Wikipedia community guidelines and, more importantly, removed factually correct information. It is difficult to see these edits as being done in good faith. I ask the main reverter to reconsider these changes or explain how the changes meet the "three revert rule" exception policy. Furthermore, the gatekeeping on this page fits squarely within community guidelines for Disruptive Editing.

Despite any previous attempts by the subject to directly engage the editors, we need to be able to trust the good faith of the editors on this page. The editors must be allowed to progress the content. To avoid escalating this issue through the dispute resolution system, let's talk here.

I suggest that: 1. any reversions over the last 24 hours be reviewed and justification added 2. large reversions should be re-reverted and specific lines should be removed manually that do not meet standards 3. future revisions should follow the same pattern 4. revisors should be more than one person (not username) to avoid the look of gatekeeping and avoid the 3 revert rule

--Arty706 (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that a rise in editing on this page is not necessarily unusual, and share the concern that promotion-detectors should not be excessively hair trigger, I see no need for particular restrictions in the other direction. And I am sure you will understand that questions could be raised about such a proposal being made by a newly created account which has only edited in this topic area and which was created shortly after another account was blocked for socking. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand the concern about a new account, but the previously blocked account wasn't me. I am a Californian and am interested in this topic, and just because my account is new doesn't mean I don't have the same rights as anyone else on here. We do need some balance in the other direction, especially when the account(s) gatekeeping this page are violating community rules. I'm open to suggestions before this blows up into a real editing war. --Arty706 (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

"Edit warring" and possible lack of "good faith" are conduct matters. What are the content matters, for example, can you identify a specific edit containing "factually correct information" that you think should not be reverted? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

1. Removing NPP

2. Adding random qualifying statements that aren't necessary and aren't present in other candidate pages

3. Originally removing the Gubernatorial candidate section

4. Reverting any changes away from inflammatory opinions ( e.g. "bad science" and "controversial and polarizing")

5. Gate keeping what is considered notable

These are just a few examples over the past 72-ish hours. The editor in question forces everyone to the talk page and then fights until everyone gives up in frustration. There is very clearly a hangover from the subject reaching directly into the Wikipedia process that has guided the recent history of the page. That needs to stop. -Arty706 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to say a few things here and then wash my hands of whatever this is, because whatever's happening in this corner of the talk page is not productive, is not constructive, and doesn't take into account previous discussions and consensus reached in above sections:

1. The gubernatorial candidate section was re-added quickly, by me, while other major additions/structural changes to the page and removal of previously agreed upon content through consensus were reverted, per Wikipedia:BRD. These changes have been discussed on the talk page, again, per Wikipedia:BRD.
2. Language such as "bad science" and "controversial and polarizing" have been: 1. Discussed here and agreed upon at talk by at least four separate editors, and 2. Were not even added by me--they were added by another user you engage with above, through the proper channels and discussion/consensus. Since they were discussed at talk and consensus was reached previously, a user cannot just come in and remove such language because they personally have an issue with it.
3. In terms of 3RR, you'll see that two reversions involved a sock account, which does not apply to the 3RR rule.
4. The original addition of NPP was reverted because the anonymous ip that added it also removed language in the lead that was added (by a different user) after consensus was reached here at talk.
5. Finally, I don't appreciate speculation about why I'm editing Wikipedia. I'd appreciate it if we stayed far and away from any sort of personal attacks here.

That said, since, again, none of this seems to be constructive or based in productivity, I'm out.--Hobomok (talk) 18:50, 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)

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)

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)

Reverting of edit?

@William M. Connolley: I added this edit in earlier[3] 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)

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)

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.

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)

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)