Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Synthesis and COI

@Wtmusic: please explain this addition to the lead section of the article, when it violates WP:LEAD (the lead should provide an overview of the body of the article, and the body doesn't mention it), it's cited only to primary sources, and it appears to be a non-notable fact singled out among many others in the subject's VC.

Your edit summary indicates that you feel there's evidence of some sort of conflict of interest, but this isn't mentioned or implied anywhere in the sources cited, and WP:SYNTHESIS on Wikipedia is prohibited. I have removed the statement because the WP:BURDEN of supporting this addition hasn't been met. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I've read your comments, and for the most part appreciate and agree with the corrections you've made. As a relative novice I welcome any suggestions on how I might improve my participation on Wikipedia.

The YouTube video is an exception. Wikipedia's policy for using videos as references states "There are channels for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations generally considered reliable...". Do you have any reason to assume World Efficiency is an unreliable source, that the material in the video was not produced by World Efficiency (their banner appears multiple times therein), or that the video was doctored or edited to use climatologists' comments out of context? Otherwise, the video is subject to peer review like any other, and alternative interpretations of comments in the video would be welcome.

Also: "...don't use the YouTube information, but instead find the original movie or TV program's data.". The YouTube information is, as far as I can determine, the only record (and a valuable one) of these climatologists' comments, and I hope you will help me understand what might qualify as editorializing in my edits.

Yes - I do feel the YouTube material is absolutely necessary to include, as well as the designation of his 100%-renewables papers as "controversial" - there are many reputable sources of disagreement with Jacobson's perspective. I have no conflict of interest with him, but seek to offer a balanced presentation of his topical and highly-controversial positions on renewables and nuclear energy. -Wtmusic (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing on the talk page.

First, we cannot dictate to readers how to interpret professional disagreement. We give readers the facts, which should be sufficient for them to form their own views about whether something is controversial. I removed the word "controversial" from one sentence because the cited source failed to characterize the paper as controversial. Generally it's a good idea to omit adjectives to avoid the appearance of subjectivity. Yes, there may actually be controversy. But it's better to state objectively that a paper was published that met with disagreement from peers.

I'm bothered by the YouTube video because interviews are considered primary sources, and primary sources aren't desirable. The interviews aren't covered independently in secondary sources, and the interviews have no connection to the lawsuit, as far as I can tell. Also, the quotations included do nothing more than accuse Jacobsen of making errors without actually presenting any arguments, so they're no better than subjective opinions, even if they do come from scientists. The interviews might be appropriate in a standalone article about a controversy, but in the context of a biography, they don't seem relevant. The lawsuit, on the other hand, received coverage in mainstream media, so it deserves a description in this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anachronist: "alleging errors in methodology and assumptions" is an inaccurate summary of "writing his analysis involves 'errors, inappropriate methods, and implausible assumptions'". Key to Jacobson's theory of 100% WWS is the notion of plausibility - whether the hypothesis itself merits a lengthy, in-depth analysis, or instead such an analysis is being misused to confer legitimacy to what some believe to be a patently ridiculous idea to begin with. In my opinion, assumptive or methodical error implies oversight or carelessness; inappropriate methodology and implausibility calls into question the intent and competence of the author. Others may disagree. In such cases is it not best to include the exact wording they used, and allow readers to come to their own conclusions? Wtmusic (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

What is your objective here? To present the subject in the most critical light possible? You have expressed your own personal opinion about the author's competence. Trying to get that opinion reflected in this article by peppering it with quotations supporting that view amounts to WP:SYNTHESIS, and I warned you about that on your talk page. I advise you to disengage. This is a biography article. The subject of this article isn't how others view him or what others have said. It is sufficient to state that his claims have met with disagreement from other scientists. Readers can examine the citations if they want to learn more. More detail might be appropriate for a stand-alone article on the controversy generated, but not here. A biography article should focus on the subject of the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Re: "how is that 'unsupported by reference'? It's plainly there. Replaced link with archive link." Former link provided was 404.

Yes, this is a common problem that we call WP:Link rot. A non-working link isn't, by itself, a reason to remove a true statement that was verifiable in the past. If you find dead links, it's a good idea to correct the citation with an archived version of the referenced page. Pasting the link into archive.org often finds an archive copy. If that fails, I have found that the original page may still be found on the original site in another location because the site had changed the way it archives its own pages. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@anachronist you discuss a good point about this being a biography. As per wp: primary "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" then using the federal government source such as dccourts.gov and making a "descriptive statement of fact" such as "on (date) judge (name) ordered that (plantiff's/defendant's) motion is (granted/denied/withdrawn) " I am deeply confused as to how the above could be construed as an unreliable source, or a unverified statement of interpretation? Please explain and thank you for your coaching. LearnCivics (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@anochronist: please see above paragraph. I forgot to use the : character. LearnCivics (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuit and anti-SLAPP undue weight in lead?

There seems to be some edit-warring over this currently, so I thought I'd bring this to the talk page. As explained in MOS:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article as a whole, and so should reflect the weight given different subjects in the body of the article. Currently, about 95% of this article is about the subject's research, and that appears to be what he is most notable for. However, most of the lead is dedicated to explaining the circumstances of his lawsuit against the National Academy of Scientists and the authors of that paper. If we're trying to follow WP:DUE and MOS:LEAD, then this is a problem. One approach would be to substantially rewrite the lead to give proper weight to his career and research, so that maybe a short sentence about the lawsuit would take up relatively the right amount of space. I'm probably not going to do that, and if no one else will, the the next best option would be to just remove mention of the lawsuit from the lead.

I don't know a lot about this guy. My impression of him is that he's a long-term researcher and professor who has published quite a few notable papers, and who also filed stupid and petty lawsuit. At this point it seems likely that'll he'll end up owing the defendants tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps hundreds of thousands, so make that an incredibly stupid lawsuit. The lawsuit got a lot of coverage in the mainstream press because of the novelty of a scientist suing a peer-reviewed publication for defamation. But I think Mark Jacobson is known primarily for his work. His research and ideas take up the vast majority of the article body, and rightly so. I think the coverage of the lawsuit in the body is fine as-is. But it shouldn't be over-represented in the lead.

User:The Banner, User:Rwbest, LearnCivics, what do you think? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Rwbest and User talk:Mark Z. Jacobson. This looks like another frivolous case. The Banner talk 18:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on my suggestion for the article? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest to wait with that discussion till the AN/I-case is played out. The Banner talk 19:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Red Rock Canyon, as far as I can tell, the SLAPP suit is the only reason most people have heard of him. Guy (help!) 19:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly how I first heard of him. But that doesn't mean it's what he's most notable for. It's not like he was just some nobody until the lawsuit, he's got decades of published books and articles and his ideas were receiving coverage in mainstream, non-science media. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Red Rock Canyon, he's most notable for what most sources are about. That's how it works. Like Rupert Sheldrake, who claims to be a professional biologist but is known only for "morphic resonance", a crank theory. Guy (help!) 22:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, What someone is notable for is a more subtle question than just counting up the number of sources that talk about something. We weight sources according to their long-term impact. If we didn't do that, the article on Christian Cooper would be 90% focused on the day he met Amy Cooper. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I've spent many, many hours in the past year or so reading papers to update the Sustainable energy article and I agree that Jacobson is most notable for his work, not for the lawsuits. His views on 100% renewable energy are not the scientific mainstream, but they represent a pretty popular point of view in a field where there is a wide range of respectable views. The IPCC's Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C mentions his research. He is definitely one of the best-known speakers in the U.S. on the topic of 100% renewables. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

He is, however, best known for the lawsuits, because they were publicised by climate change deniers so went well beyond the technical community. "Mark Z. Jacobson" -lawsuit only gets 113 unique results. And you can see why, for the history of his talk page: not a man who appears to take dissent well. Guy (help!) 05:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if he's best known for the lawsuit, that's only because it has become a very public event, as opposed to the rest of his life and career, which has mostly been within a the relatively non-public world of climate modeling. Newspapers don't print stories about the minutiae of statistical models, but those did receive coverage within their own sphere. And Mark Jacobson's behavior on Wikipedia is irrelevant. I've read through a bit of his talk page history, and it's certainly not something to endear one to him, but it really shouldn't have any bearing on what goes in this article. Also google hits aren't a great measure of someone's career, ever. Especially in this case when his work is in a specialist field with publications in scientific journals. If someone were to write a biography of Mark Jacobson, the lawsuit would get get a chapter, but it wouldn't get half the book. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources

In a series of edits, I just removed all mention of the order to pay legal fees, per WP:BLP. There were several issues:

1. The Robert Bryce article] is a self-published source so we can't use it at all for contentious material on a living person. See WP:FORBESCON and WP:BLPSELFPUB.
2. The Climate Case Chart website is a database of court documents. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY we cannot use court documents except to supplement a secondary source.
3. I have looked for reliable secondary sources on the legal fees issue, e.g. a Google search for "Mark Jacobson 2020" and can't find any. Since the motion is still being disputed, I imagine the press is waiting for the dispute to be more settled before they write about it.

FWIW I'm not a fan of Jacobson's views. Just trying to apply Wikipedia policy the best I can here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Robert Bryce (writer) specialises in this field, so is an expert and meets the qualified exception - requires attribution though. Guy (help!) 05:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Not everyone who has a writing specialty is an expert in what they write the most about. It would be unusual, to put it mildly, for the Wikipedia community to consider a self-described climate change agnostic and former conservative think-tank fellow whose only degree is a Bachelor of Fine Arts to be an expert on a sustainable energy researcher. Let's keep our BLP standards higher than that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you're wrong about Climate Court Case. The site there is a database of court documents, but that's not all it is. The specific link used as a source, [1], contains this text:

Climate Scientist Must Pay Attorney’s Fees After Bringing Defamation Suit Regarding Publication of Article. The D.C. Superior Court granted defendants’ motions for attorney’s fees and costs in a defamation lawsuit brought by a climate scientist in connection with the publication of an article written by one of the defendants that evaluated an article published by the plaintiff. The other defendant was the publisher of the journal in which the article appeared. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his action approximately five months after filing it and two days after a hearing on the defendants’ special motion to dismiss pursuant to the D.C. Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) Act. The court found that the defendants were entitled to attorney’s fees because the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act covered the plaintiff’s claims, a jury could not reasonably find that the claims were supported, and the plaintiff’s attempts to obtain corrections in the article before filing suit did not constitute special circumstance that made a fees award unjust.

That's not a primary court document, that's a summary of a court ruling by an independent source. If we consider Climate Court Case reliable, and I don't see any reason not to, then this text should be an acceptable source for this material.

I wasn't able to find any other coverage of this ruling. Given how much the earlier stages of the lawsuit were reported on, it seems likely there would be some other mention of this. Perhaps there will be more sources available once the final decision comes down with the court's determination of how much he owes the National Academy of Sciences and Clack, but that could be months or years, or never, depending on whether he appeals. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Red Rock Canyon, you're right, there is more to this website than raw court documents. The summary that you quoted from the website is indeed not a court document - it's an independently-written summary of a court document, so it is something we could consider as being a secondary source. Having said that, I would argue that it doesn't have the qualities of a secondary source that make it a suitable basis for the narrative of an encyclopedia article: It exists to make a database table more complete, not because someone with editorial oversight made a judgement that it told an important story. And it doesn't have enough context to indicate whether the decision is final or whether it's part of a larger process. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but at the moment I don't yet see the existence of sources that we can use to give this court motion any weight in the article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Clayoquot, "Bryce has been writing about the energy business for three decades. He spent twelve years writing for The Austin Chronicle.[1] From 2006 to 2010, he was the managing editor of the online magazine, Energy Tribune.[2] From October 2007 to February 2008 he was a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research. From 2010 to 2019 he was a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.[3]" Guy (help!) 11:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, have you looked at the Wikipedia articles for the Institute for Energy Research? Did you see the part about its predecessor being founded by Charles Koch, or the descriptions of the organization as a front group for the fossil fuel industry and one of the most prominent organizations questioning the extent of climate change? You seem to be saying that being involved in this organization makes a person a more reliable source about the lives of academics who research alternative energy. I really don't understand why you would think this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

With regard to 'considering climate court case" a reliable source, just go straight to the source, the United States Government, Superior Court, D.C.

https://eaccess.dccourts.gov/eaccess/search.page.3.1?x=*iM9GWJ86cWFIE*l3ugn1BFOhqJj4nsgB4OL-xmYHPF5B59MfvykeyenNGeDOM*QaWXxr5uLO-Sz65csdDhC9Q

Without any interpretation, are we still going to reject statements such as "court order for (defendant/plantiff's) motion was (granted/denied/withdrawn)" that directly reference the heading and conclusion of a US Federal Court document? LearnCivics (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

See WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Generally it is not acceptable to use court documents as sources. The idea is that we should take our cues from secondary sources to see if the material in question is important or relevant enough to include in an article about someone. I've searched a couple times, and I haven't found any sources discussing this other than Climate Court Case, and there are questions whether we should consider that a primary or secondary source, since it's mainly just a collection of links to court documents. And then there's that Forbes article, which is considered an opinion column and isn't reliable for factual claims (since it's one of their "contributor" pieces that aren't fact-checked). Basically, even if we know something is true, it might not be suitable for inclusion in an article, especially an article about a living person, where WP:BLP requires us to be especially careful due to the possible consequences of screwing up. If the case is notable, it will be reported in other sources. Judging by the amount of reporting when he first filed his lawsuit, I'd guess some newspapers will pick up the story when the judgement is finalized, so we might as well wait until then. If it's not reported, then it probably doesn't belong in the article. Personally, I'm really not sure about what to consider Climate Court Case. If you want to pursue this, I'd recommend opening a thread at WP:BLPN to ask other editors' opinions on what to think about the sources and whether to include this material.

Oh, but in any case, even if it is included in the article, it definitely shouldn't be in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article and should devote space to material in accordance with how much space it receives in the body. Something minor like this shouldn't be in the lead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments red rocks. As far as climate court case goes, I previously suggested not using it, as it could be selectively cherry picking documents and I wouldn't know one way or the other, so instead going straight to the irrifutable source, dccourts.gov

As far as it being in the lead, it all ready IS in the lead. It's widely reported by the NYT and 4 other cited sources.

This is merely follow up recording of the courts decision to grant the defendents motion and that the plantiff's motion is denied. 1 sentence addition to the lead.

When someone does write about it, that can be added to the body to further describe the decision.

Yes, care should be taken to not include unnecessary opinion. But excluding statements of fact solely because they have not been reported on is also a disservice to readers who are wondering the status of something previously reported and recorded in Wikipedia.

Enjoy Sedona! LearnCivics (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)