Talk:Susan Solomon

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Susan Solomon. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Peace Prize 2007

What basis is there for saying that she "shared" the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and IPCC in 2007? NobelPrize-dot-org does not mention her. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She was part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which won the prize that year. I don't think that rises to the level of mention on her page, but I suspect that was the rationale used by the person who added it. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed material that blatantly violates BLP

In January 2025 an editor added a number of links to an online book that strongly criticizes Dr. Solomon's book "The Coldest March". The criticisms include accusations of Data Manipulation and Fabrication of Meteorological Data. The online book is the only source for these highly contentious accusations. The book was published by a shadowy publisher ("Open Academic Press") that has been included in lists of "Predatory Publishers" (see, for example, https://predatoryjournals.org/publisher-list-2 and https://beallslist.net/), so it is safe to infer that it has not received any serious peer review. Rparson1 (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this source turned out to be reliable (it won’t) at most it would warrant a couple of sentences within the article per WP:UNDUE. I’ve asked the editor who inserted the content to reply here. This is the end of my involvement in the matter Hy Brasil (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from User talk:Rparson1): Hello, I strongly object to your actions regarding my edits on Solomon’s work. My contribution to Wikipedia was made in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, which emphasize that all information should be properly referenced. I spent several months preparing my edits, ensuring that all my points were supported by references to a published book (nearly 800 pages, 1,400 references, and 144 figures) written by a university professor (a theoretical physicist). The book was peer-reviewed. My edits provide a concise summary of the book, with precise references to specific pages where particular issues are analyzed and presented.

What is truly defamatory in this situation is that Solomon himself committed all the mentioned issues and errors.

My edits fully comply with Wikipedia's rules, including:

Neutral Point of View (NPOV): All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral perspective, meaning it should fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias, represent all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources on a topic. My edits strictly adhere to NPOV.

Verifiability: On the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that readers should be able to confirm that information originates from a reliable source. All my edits are referenced, allowing readers to check not only the source but also the scientific arguments and research that support each observation or conclusion.

No Original Research: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. My edits strictly include only published research.

Cheers, Johanes. Johanes1980 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book is absolutely an unreliable source. It only exists in an online archive - it is not available from reputable distributors such as Amazon or Barnes&Noble. The publisher, "Open Academic Press", has been listed as a Predatory Publisher ( https://www.openacessjournal.com/blog/predatory-publishers/, https://predatorylist.com/, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cen-09446-notw13).) For all intents and purposes this is a self-published book - what we used to call a "vanity press" in the days before online publishing. Accusations such as "Data Manipulation" and "Falsification of Meteorological Records" are potentially libellous. This absolutely violates the Biography of Living Persons policy.

If you rewrite your arguments so as to avoid accusations of academic misconduct against living people, and back them with more reliable sources, you could present them on Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott which would be a more relevant place in any case.

Regards, Rparson1 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope that it is now up to your expectations.Cheers, Johanes. Johanes1980 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are still issues with this revised edit you made:

The cited source is "article commentary", ie. an editorial, according to the AMS listing. Editorials are not reliable for statements of fact.
You mention that Related publications in that journal highlight concerns, but don't cite any of them.
More importantly, you've misrepresented your source. Your edit says that Solomon's book ... has faced additional criticism for its selective use of data and statistical assumptions, particularly in attributing Scott's expedition's fate to exceptionally rare cold conditions. The editorial is an analysis of an article by Fogt et al., and has nothing to do with The Coldest March by Solomon. For example, the following section which you are trying to pass off as a criticism of Solomon is actually about Fogt (as you can see from Solomon being one of the citations):

In the analysis, the authors did not use all of Scott’s temperature data and limited their analysis to up to 3 March, though in Figs. 4b and 4c the depicted data end on 4/5 March. Thus, part of the most crucial set of temperature data recorded in Scott’s journal (Solomon 2001; Sienicki 2016) was omitted.

I am reverting your edit. Please do not try this again without a real source. Iiii I I I (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]