Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson/Archive 2

Synthesis and COI
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)


 * 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)

"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)

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: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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)

Questions re: primary source, statement of fact, waiting for secondary source (specifically about lawsuit outcome anti-SLAPP case)
The questions before the editors are: I - what is a reliable source? II - what is a statement of fact? III - what belongs (or not) in the lead of a bio? IV - combined, what is or isn't valuable information to Wikipedia readers?

The following is in reference to talk between @LearnCivics and @Clayoquot, for which @LearnCivics is very thankful for the coaching, direction, explanations, and WP: links from @Clayoquot.

1) Mark Z Jacobson is a PhD in climatology with a Wikipedia biography page.

2) In 2017 Jacobson (plantiff) sued Christopher Clack, also with a PhD in climatology, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PNAS (defendents) for libel and other torts.

3) In 2018 Jacobson withdrew his suit.

4) the dispute was widely reported by the NY Times, San Diego Union Tribune, Washington Post, and at least three others, all cited in Wikipedia.

5) as such this is a major story, a brief paragraph summarizing the dispute is published in the Wikipedia lead and further describe in the body.

6) in April 2020 the court granted defendents motion for attorneys costs to be paid by plantiff Jacobson.

7) this was reported by Robert Bryce of Forbes.

8) however it was published in Forbes.Com not the print magazine and is therefore deemed a self-published unreliable source, per WP:FORBESCON.

9) in July is was discovered by @LearnCivics (no relationship to Jacobson) that a. In May 2020 Jacobson filed a motion for reconsideration. b. In June the court granted the defendents motions for payment and denied the plantiff Jacobsons motion to reconsider. c. Clack submitted attorneys fees of $75,000. d.  PNAS submitted attorneys fees of $535,904.

10) the source for (9) is the US federal government website for the D.C. Superior Court, www.dccourts.gov specifically https://eaccess.dccourts.gov/eaccess/search.page.3.1?x=w*98LtbQNQiCEtYkGFow8aWT1p*MZanCmEdFIcj9uxAYqaF3v0Yuz0uA5pBXt0y5rrx7FwRRVA5rXFTcZ4HXzg docket 4/20/20 order that defendants motions are granted, signed judge J.Wingo, and Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendants¿ Motions For Costs and Attorney¿s Fees Under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act signed by Judge Wingo submitted 06/25/2020 14:54:22. kc.	Image

11) www.dccourts.gov is considered by @LearnCivics to be an irrifutable primary source, not subject to misinformation and public manipulation, therefore highly reliable.

12) in Talk: Mark Z Jacobson, 'lawsuit and anti-SLAPP undue weight in the lead?', editor @Red Rocks Canyon believes: a. an additional statement such as "court order for defendants motion to collect attorneys fees is granted" is "minor" and doesn't belong in the lead. b. 'Just wait for some newspaper to pick up the story.'

13) WP:BLPRS says a source must be verifiable. Is not a court order signed by a US Federal judge (PDF) on a .gov website of the court a verifiable source as unlikely to be challenged as can be?

14) WP:BLPPRIMARY says to not use trial transcriptions *to support an assertion*, however, @LearnCivics insists that the words "court orders motion by defendants granted" or "court orders motion by plantiff denied" are NOT assertions.

15) As per WP:PRIMARY, policy " 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." @LearnCivics insists that a. the words "court orders motion by defendants granted" or "court orders motion by plantiff is denied" are as straightforward and descriptive fact as can be. They are the actual wording at the head of the court document, and repeated at the conclusion. b.  No specialized knowledge is required to comprehend "granted, denied, or ordered." No legal analysis is being made, and the logic of the ruling is not being summarized. c. Any educated person can access the courts ruling on PDF without specialized knowledge. d. Any educated person without specialized legal training can still understand the meaning of one sentence such as "court orders motion by defendants granted" or "court orders motion by plantiff is denied."

16) A follow-up to the previously published Wikipedia biography page clearly stating there is a libel suit is of utmost interest to Wikipedia readers.

17) Regarding 12(b), having up-to-date information on a Wikipedia page regarding the outcome of a legal proceeding should be of upmost concern to Wikipedia readers, and having to wait until "some newspaper picks it up" shouldn't be the basis for an update to a previously published proceeding.

18) An award of over $610,000 is not a minor news item. Therefore it is also not a minor statement.

19) what if no newspaper ever picks up the primary court order and makes a secondary news article about it? Does that mean that per Wikipedia policy, it didn't happen and can't be stated in a Wikipedia biography?

Therefore: I - is the direct website of a federal court a reliable, verifiable source?

II - is notice of a court order granting, denying, or dismissing a plantiff's or defendents motion, worded directly as such, without opinion or expression, a statement of fact?

III - is a courts ruling on a legal matter previously secondarily sourced by some of the largest newspapers in the country and previously published in the Wikipedia biography lead worthy of a single sentence follow-up, regardless of whether or not a newspaper has written about the decision and ruling, thereby making a secondary source?

IV - shouldn't Wikipedia readers have the benefit of learning the outcome (being a ruling with a court order, or an appeal of that order) of a legal matter that has previously been published in Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not a reliable secondary source has written about the outcome, if the source of the outcome is the publicity available documents in the government website?

--- All of the above is a lot to digest and the editors and moderators of Wikipedia are thanked in advance for their thoughtful participation in this matter of what we hope you will agree are very serious questions.

Furthermore, the page has reported issues. Hopefully timely, up to date information can resolve some of the issues. LearnCivics (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

4 questions on Wikipedia policy re: BLP primary sources and statements of descriptive fact
4 specific questions in the format of "change X to Y given Z":

I - is the direct website of a federal court a reliable, verifiable source?

II - is a court order granting or denying a plantiff's or defendents motion, worded directly as such without opinion, a statement of fact?

III - is a courts ruling on a legal matter previously secondarily sourced by the largest newspapers in the country and previously published in the Wikipedia biography lead worthy of a single sentence follow-up, whether or not a secondary source newspaper has written about the decision yet?

IV - shouldn't Wikipedia readers have the benefit of learning the outcome (a court order, or an appeal of that order) of a legal matter that has previously been published in Wikipedia, whether or not a reliable secondary source has written about the outcome, if the primary source is reliable?

The issues and events driving the above 4 questions are listed in a prior discussion, ftiw. LearnCivics (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) No. 4) No. Wikipedia readers should have the benefit of an update when sourcing is available that will enable us to write the update properly. To do it properly we have to give the reader enough context to understand what the motion means, not just quote the motion without further explanation. If you think court documents should be allowed as the basis for a narrative in biographies of living people, you can bring it up at WT:Biographies of living persons. You might want to search of the archives there first as the issue has been discussed before. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 05:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)