Talk:Reviews on Environmental Health

Carpenter stuff relevant?
It seems to me that the stuff recently added to the article about David O. Carpenter has been coatracked on as it is not directly relevant to the subject of this journal. Unless someone says why they think it belongs in the article here, I intend to remove it for this reason. Everymorning  talk to me  23:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC) If it's not relevant then why are secondary sources calling attention to it when "Reviews on Environmental Health" appears in the media? It's clearly relevant because the editor in chief decides what this publication publishes. This is not a bio that gives information like when the editor in chief was born. The article should tell readers what the editorial policy of this publication is. Replace it with other information as to that policy if you like, but simply deleting this is covering up the fact this publication is something of an advocacy publication. NPOV means stepping back and letting readers draw their own conclusions about the editor in chief's advocacy. That advocacy is not being spun in any particular direction but is being presented matter-of-factly. Any publication whose editor-in-chief has pushed scientifically dubious theories should have that called attention to. Why should readers be denied the opportunity to see that citation which notes that the editor in chief's "claims are way out of line with the actual ﬁndings of the Hites study"? If this sort of thing were typical of your academic journal editor-in-chief, that'd be one thing, but fact is that is NOT typical for something said to be peer reviewed.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just removed this, it's indeed not relevant here. Carpenter is notable (already by the fact that he's EIC of this journal) and this kind of stuff belongs in a bio on him. --Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it again, please don't put it back before obtaining consensus here. You give two sources. The first one is some court document, which really is not a good source here. The second one does not even mention the journal. The link in your above comment mentions neither the journal nor Carpenter. Unless you have independent reliable sources that document that these things have actually been of importance to the journal, it doesn't belong here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What doesn't belong here is misrepresenting this publication as less controversial than it is by obscuring the fact that an editor in chief pushes fringe theories, and this ends up reflected in articles alleging cancer that other peer reviewed journals are not publishing. I called attention to that link in my comment above to illustrate that the editor in chief advances fringe theories and I think you understand that such that it seems to me you are being deliberately obtuse about the significance of that link.  It's just coincidence, in your view, that the editor in chief believes Wi-Fi causes cancer and then this publication publishes "science" to that effect?  If it's not coincidence then readers ought to be presented with the information that would allow them to accurately expect what sort of material is published here.  I note that globalresearch.ca linked to this dubious "science."  What do we learn when we search for globalresearch.ca on Wikipedia?  Why, we get a biography.  Of the editor of globalresearch.ca.  According to you, the editor is to be kept strictly separate.  If you are consistent, then, you will be heading over to that article demanding separation between the editor and what he edits, no?  The WHO says that "In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields."  Yet this publication publishes as "science" the declaration that "wireless telecommunications technologies" are a health hazard.  Readers are entitled to know this, and not just be misled into concluding that this publisher of fringe "science" is up there with the Journal of the American Medical Association.  The appropriate approach is to note the facts and allow the reader to draw his or her own conclusion about the relevance and significance of those facts, instead of substituting our own judgement on the issue.  I'll add here that Carpenter regularly publishes as lead author or even sole author in his own journal, often on the same issue that other sources say is fringe science if it's science at all.  You have an interest in academic journals, do you not, RandyKitty?  Now tell me how often have you seen an EiC regularly publishing his sole author articles in his own journal and that's not been notable, never mind in order to make claims that are very weakly supported, if at all, by other peer reviewed research.  Pointing out to readers here that this EiC is vocal on the WiFi-cancer thing is all of informative, relevant to the journal given the frequency with which it publishes on that topic, and accurate.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are millions of articles here, not all are up to our standards and it is impossible for one person to make sure they are, so your argument about globalresearch.ca falls under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. As for the rest, unless you have independent reliable sources that say that this journal is biased because the editor dabbles in fringe science, you cannot write that into the article. Writing suggestive stuff about the editor is not permissible and boils down to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "not permissible" because you make the rules? May I remind you that this is is a community project?  What you call "CRAP" is community generated product, and accordingly presumptively indicative of what the community considers acceptable.  If the community does not accept it, then why prefer to dispute with me instead of editing over there to unanimous agreement?  Good evidence that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is it work is when someone trots out  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (a non-policy, i.e. essay, that furthermore applies to AfD discussions, which this is not) when the soundness of the reasoning behind their standards is questioned by pointing out inconsistent enforcement and flipping from one unrelated argument to another, as here where you flip from "not relevant" to "original research"?  Because an argument that demonstrates relevance is "original research"?  "original research" applies to articles, not Talk pages.  What you are reverting is the issue here.  You previously claimed that, in effect, the material was trivial.  You now seem to agree that it's not trivial, but have found a new objection, despite the fact the text at issue is the same.  The text at issue notes that the principle editor in chief has a notable POV.  Deciding that that is relevant is our job, the job of Wikipedia editors.  "original research" is concerned with Wikipedia editors who go beyond their editing job of deciding what goes in or stays out, to creating content.  This is not creating content not found in the cited RS.  It's furthermore material of interest to readers, whom we are here to serve.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Our job" is to follow the sources. If you have reliable secondary sources that state that the editors views are fringe and influence the way this journal is edited, then we can write that. Until the it stays out. --Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then do "our job" and stopping deleting material that follows the sources. RS support the edit at issue, and your notion that Wikipedia operates on a double RS basis with the second RS showing the "relevance" of the first is just that, your notion.  You've removed this material declaring that the absence of a second RS renders it non-notable.  That's not an argument against notability, that's simply an unsupported assertion.  If you aren't inclined to back up your non-notable contention, I say you can't be bothered to edit war.  What goes in and out is not determined by you declaring your way or the highway, it is determined by Wikipedia policy, with interest to the reader being a prime criterion for inclusion.  Readers can come to their own conclusion about the relevance of the material, without you using your personal unjustified opinion that it isn't relevant to decide for them.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We do not include biographical details on editors in articles on academic journals, unless there are reliable sources that document that these biographical things have relevance for the editor's influence on the journal. You consistently fail to present sources for this, so adding this info to the article on the journal is undue synthesis. Of course, this information could be added to a biographical article on the editor (and as the editor of a notable journal, he meets WP:ACADEMIC). --Randykitty (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What we in fact do is follow community-determined policy as opposed to what Randykitty declares "we do". "biographical details" about someone's advocacy when that someone plays a directing role with respect to a publication that is the subject of a non-biographical article provides info about what to expect from the publication and its perspective and are accordingly recommended for inclusion in the non-biographical article in question.  It's elementary to our job in building an encyclopedia.  The reader-can't-handle-the-truth attitude of many deletionist editors is both patronizing and typically associated with a desire to push reader conclusions in a certain direction.  As I'll note later in this comment, it's quite clear what that direction is in this case.  I put "biographical details" in scare quotes because I think your terminology here is misleading with respect to what's in the disputed edit: no one is adding the EiC's birthdate and family members.  You just cited UNDUE here, yet nowhere in UNDUE do I find the law you just laid down in your first sentence here.  I am not here to satisfy your idiosyncratic demands, and neither is any other Wikipedia editor.  This is a community project, not your private fief.  If you can't cite policy to support your deletion of this verified/reliable material, then you are failing to show community support for your deletion of material that is of interest to readers (I originally came to this Wikipedia article about this publication looking for information about the publication's editorial stance like WIkipedia routinely provides about newspapers as the extraordinary claims appearing in this particular publication called for an explanation).  I will note that the text at issue is not SYNTH, as it doesn't say any more than what the sources say.  SYNTH does not apply to Talk pages, for the simple reason that while editors are not supposed to edit an article in order to have it "argue" in a direction the sources aren't going, generating an argument on a Talk page to support one's editing is a reason Talk pages exist.  SYNTH means we are not supposed to think for the reader, it does NOT mean we are not supposed to think for ourselves!  Instead of engaging with the argument, you've retreated into the apparent security of some deletionist dogma (and a question-begging conclusion about just how much of an "academic journal" this publication is).  As for creating a bio for the EiC, I see that as a more contentious and unpreferred alternative as it contributes to the proliferation of stubs (something you are also aggravating here by blocking this article's expansion) and, more importantly, the subject is in fact better known for his advocacy and his polemics than for the rigour of his research.  It is, in fact, very questionable whether this is in fact a "major well-established academic journal" and that appears to go to the heart of the disagreement here.  I think readers are entitled to transparency about whether this publication is more what is typically implied by peer-reviewed academic journal or more of an advocacy vehicle.  You seem absolutely determined to hide that issue over in order to beg the question.  If a bio were created for the EiC, would you give up your deletionist agenda long enough to go to bat to defend against its deletion?  Particularly with respect to the near inevitable suggestion that the "bio material" be merged into the existing article that the person is most closely associated with?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's really, really, very simple. Talking about an editor's personal opinions is highly suggestive, but without evidence that it has anything to do with the journal, it is just WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed by policy. Please read that again. If you have a reliable source that documents that the editor's personal opinions influence editorial policy, it can be included. Similarly, if you have a reliable source that documents that this journal is more of an advocacy vehicle than an academic journal, we can write that. Without sources it's just your opinion and it is out. --Randykitty (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to do something here that you refuse to do and cite chapter and verse: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." That's in the very first paragraph of WP:SYNTH.  The policy is crystal clear on the point so stop misusing policy.  You've called my observations that go to some of the reasons why this material is notable SYNTH yet those observations are Talk page observations and the policy instruction you are defying could hardly be more explicit.  As for WP:UNDUE, I won't invite you to read it again as you might again misread it, I'll  instead invite you to cite chapter and verse from UNDUE to justify your deletion.  I don't expect you will do that, actually cite policy, because re UNDUE you simply can't.  You are misusing WP:RS by claiming that material that satisfies RS still cannot be included without another layer of secondary RS showing that it is not UNDUE.  As for how much of an "academic journal" this is, you are the party claiming that this publication is entitled to special treatment, creating some sort of firewall between the EiC and the publication, and accordingly the burden of proof is on you, not me.   I am the skeptic here.  The party who is arrogantly insisting on certain knowledge about the nature of this publication and its policies is not me.  Where are the sources for your contention there is a firewall which would render this material about what's on the other side of the firewall pure trivia?  I've provided evidence on this Talk page that goes against that contention.  I think we've had enough opinion from you to date such that it's time to start addressing my evidence and producing some evidence of your own.  Since this is a Talk page, what you cite here need not satisfy RS per se.  They do need to support your Talk page argument however.  At present, you just keep insisting on how independent of the EiC - and therefore unrelated to the EiC's advocacy history - this publication's editorial policy is without providing any evidence for your opinion and ignoring the counter-evidence.  Absent that evidence, it is up to the reader to decide what to make of this material, not you.  I'll note that your other option here is to get your opinion written into policy.  You seem to be more interested in excluded this because of a generalization than for any reason specific to this particular case anyway.  There's nothing stopping you from heading over to a policy Talk page and calling for policy to be redone so that it clearly supports your opinion.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try this one more time. Suppose you have a reliable source that tells us that Carpenter's wife is named Zoey. Do we put that in this article? Of course not, because there is no evidence that this has anything to do with the journal. It would be different if the journal would be renamed "Zoey's Reviews on Environmental Health" in honor of his wife, because now we would have sourced information that is relevant for this journal. Similarly, as soon as you have evidence that Carpenter's personal beliefs unduly influence his editing, that not only could, but should be part of the article. However, as long as all you have is something about his beliefs, but no evidence that this has any influence on his editing except for conjecture, it's SYNTH and it is out. I don't understand what you are saying about talk pages: we are talking about your insertion of SYNTH into the article, not the talk page. And I also note that you have been challenged about this editor by two different editors, so at this point, consensus is to keep that stuff out. --Randykitty (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another editor kicked off this thread by titling it with a question and that question appears to be satisfactorily answered for everyone concerned except you. Information about the EiC's spouse is not at issue and I would not object to its deletion, so enough with that straw man, however I note that even here you cannot, or will not, cite policy.  You just make a deletionist assumption as if that assumption is as elementary and obvious as the sky being blue.  I find your disinclination to check your POV against the community by citing community-developed policy (and citing specific wording, as opposed to giving yet another personal opinion by stating what you think policy to be) quite telling.  The presumption of the project is, in fact, that reliably sourced and neutrally presented material is IN until something like UNDUE shows that it should be out.  Informing readers is our first and most elementary job, not hiding things from them.  If the material is "suggestive" about the EiC, it's because the reliably sourced material is suggestive.  There's no editorializing going on in the text at issue;  we do not delete suggestive facts because they are suggestive, and with respect to cases where we do look to delete RSed facts, this particular article is miles away from being overlong.  Continuing to just give your opinion might be fine were you not edit warring with another editor, another editor who has repeatedly and continually asked you to cite policy, produce evidence, and generate an argument supporting your opinion like he has.  Just typing out "SYNTH" does not constitute citing policy when SYNTH, like every other policy, has specific terms and applications, specific terms and applications which do not apply here as the text at issue says no more than, and is fully supported by, the RS cited.  The burden of evidence here on is in fact on you, as you are the party insisting without any evidence that the EiC's advocacy of pseudoscience is so totally and necessarily unrelated to this publication's advocacy of the same pseudoscience as to render the material at issue trivial to the point of UNDUE clutter.  Relevance is decided by the editors, based on what is considered likely to be useful to readers.  I'm open minded on the question of the EiC's influence over the publication, and I respect the reader's capacity to reason enough to pass the matter on to the reader for the reader to decide, unlike you.  You've linked to UNDUE, but refuse to quote from UNDUE to support your deletion, instead engaging in some hand waving.  This has gone on long enough.  It's time to put up or shut up, and then means show us your evidence that there is firewall creating the irrelevancy that you claim exists, and address the counter-evidence that I've supplied.  If your contention is that this material fails to give a truthful impression of the subject, then it's time to produce evidence of that.  If you think this is an "All About George" situation, then, making due allowance for the fact that "George" example is from an essay, not policy, quote from it and we'll see if it applies.  I believe you are not doing this sort of thing because you can't find support for your position even in an essay.  That example mentions "negative unsourced 'coats'" and the material at issue is neither negative nor unsourced (I may think it's negative but my opinion is on the same level as readers who may think it positive). --Brian Dell (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH is policy. Writing about the EICs beliefs insinuates that this influences his editing. And it is not up to me to prove that it doesn't, as I don't want to add text to the article saying something like that. You however insist on adding stuff to the article, so the onus is on you to show that it is relevant by basing it on reliable sources. Come up with evidence that this is important for the journal and we'll include it. Without such evidence, this is the end of the story, no matter how many walls of text you're going to post here. --Randykitty (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * re what you "want", everyone knows what you want here. Declaring what you want is not going to make this dispute go away, no matter how many times you declare "I don't want to add text to the article".  SYNTH most certainly is policy, which is why I quoted from it, a quote you continue to ignore saying you don't "understand", never mind that it very explicitly says it does not apply to Talk pages.  There is NO "synth" in the material at issue.  If there is, show me.  Where.  Exactly.  And QUOTE from the policy.  And the material does NOT say the EiC's beliefs "influence his editing".  What we have here is YOU insisting on the negative, as if you KNOW that it does not.  To which I say prove it.  Prove your claim.  You are the one making the claim here.  I do not have to come up with RS showing the material is "important for the journal".  That's just you manufacturing a policy and then proceeding to edit war.  How long would it take to build Wikipedia if every time someone added something, policy needed to be cited showing why the included material must be included, apart from satisfying RS etc (which you link to here as if RS has not been fully satisfied in the edit at issue)?  There is a reason for a wikilnk to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, where all the examples are prefaced with "Delete", that reason being that calling for deletion without argument or evidence doesn't cut it for a project we are here to build as opposed to dismantle.  I've nonetheless provided on this Talk page evidence that the firewall you presume to exist does not, in fact, exist, evidence put together by research you contend is SYNTH as if SYNTH applies to Talk pages (it does not).  It's your deletion rationale that needs to cite policy, my addition being fully onboard with all policies, and you refuse to do so.  Without any evidence supporting your claim that this material cannot be relevant, it is indeed the end of the story, so enough with the edit warring.  Like I said, it's time to put up or shut up.  Prove this supposed firewall exists or concede that it may not exist and that this material may be of interest to readers.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

3rd party opinion(s)
Thanks for posting a 3PO. I'm not seeing a reliable source that specifically criticizes the journal for its editorial policy or for having Carpenter as its ed-i-c. Is there such a source? If not, then it strikes me as inappropriate (WP:OR or WP:Synth, lacking WP:RS) to include his slant in the article. In addition, I looked at the citations for the journal's articles, including his articles, which are fine and don't indicate a general problem. Brian Dell, you may be correct about the Truth of the matter, i.e., perhaps there is a bias. But until it is reported by reputable sources, IMO we don't put it in the encyclopedia. Sorry, I realize you care about this and it is a health issue (or absence of one). Maybe you can find critical sources that would at least belong in an article on the issue, if not this journal itself. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Btw, it looks like you each have done at least 3 reverts in a short period of time. I suggest you desist, since by WP:3RR there might actions taken against you both, though I'm not sure and I'm not in a position to issue a warning. HG | Talk 23:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not have reverted had the other editor preceded his or her revert with a response to me on the Talk page. Editors who are not prepared to engage on article Talk pages have to be stood up to, to some extent, otherwise reverting ends up substituting for engagement.  99% of the time the other editor's preferred reversion has been what is presented to the reader, which I believe is good evidence that I'm prepared to stand down when there isn't another factor at play besides what the reader finds.  As for "don't put it in the encyclopedia", I take it you mean "it" to mean "bias".  I don't believe including the material creates a bias.  Rather, the dispute is over Randykitty's contention that there cannot possibly be any EiC influence over his publication, thereby rendering the material of no potential relevance.  There's no requirement for a source criticizing the subject's editorial policy because I don't believe the material at issue necessarily criticizes anything.  Some readers may think it constitutes praise.  The whole paradigm that this is some sort of hit job needs to be justified, because I don't believe that's there.  Not every attempt to add material is some sort of bad faith plot to steer readers in a certain direction.  Some, dare I say most, additions are good faith efforts to INFORM.  I do not care if readers think more or less of the publication consequent to their being informed of all the facts.  That's their business, not mine.  Randykitty seems to care a great deal if readers should happen to think in a certain direction on the "more or less of" question.  I'll add that excluding this material does not necessarily leave behind an unbiased article.  I need to "find critical sources" to justify critical material.  This material is not critical, unless one adopts a non-neutral POV.  In summary, I think "you may be correct about the Truth of the matter" is addressed to the wrong editor, as I'm not the party reading between the lines and then proceeding to test the inbetween-the-lines material against "the Truth" to finally conclude the material must be excluded in order to avoid a false impression.  See Verifiability, not truth.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The 1-2 sentences involved do not belong in this article about the journal, though perhaps appropriate for an article about Carpenter, who is being vocal about this issues. While I know you don't agree with my opinion, I gather that my own view is pretty clear. Let me know if y'all would like any further input from me. Thanks! HG | Talk 00:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your view is quite clear, thank you. I find it unfortunate that that's all we got from you (I don't believe resolution of the issue is short on opinion) but it is what it is.--Brian Dell (talk)
 * Hi. If I'm not mistaken, the 3PO request is for the opinion of an uninvolved party. I try to give an opinion based on WP principles and guidelines, as I understand them. I'm not adverse to your getting more from me, just let me know what you have in mind. Thanks! HG | Talk 01:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, why do you think this material "criticizes the journal"? I know that's your opinion, but why do you hold that opinion?  You mention the RS policy and call for "critical sources" to support the criticism but I don't see any uncited "criticism" here.  I am skeptical that what you see in fact exists.  In at least my own mind I added this material in order to add to reader awareness as opposed to shifting reader awareness, although greater awareness may in turn entail shifts in opinion.  While "a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias" I looked for anything about this publication that could be of reader interest, regardless of whether it was praise or criticism.  Certainly it's possible for readers to conclude the material is critical, but it's also possible for them to decline to conclude that this publication is "biased."  Some, maybe even many, readers may share Randykitty's view that there cannot be bias, this being a respected academic journal and all.  At issue in my mind is whether readers are being led into a direction not supported by the totality of RS out there, not whether readers might be.  There will always be readers who read into what Wikipedia reports what they want to read.  Our job is to just stick to the facts (or more precisely, reliable sources).--Brian Dell (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, good question. The info/facts are about Carpenter, not the journal. An inference needs to be made that links Carpenter's views to the journal per se. Who should make that inference? You said above, let "readers draw their own conclusions about the editor in chief's advocacy." However, I disagree based on WP principles. Unless/until we have a reliable source drawing that conclusion, it doesn't yet belong in an article. We could put in all sorts of facts that might lead readers to make conclusions about the journal. For instance, which corporations fund their editors? From which universities have most authors come from in the last year? Etc. But it's a kind of WP:OR original research for us to decide to include facts that, from the reliable sources, are not already linked to the journal. Does this make sense? Look, if it is germane to our knowledge of the Journal itself, then why not go find a secondary sources that says so? Thanks. HG | Talk 01:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What's germane to our knowledge of a Wikipedia article is decided by Wikipedia editors, editors whom I believe should avoid substituting their opinion for readers' opinion by limiting exclusion on this ground to cases where editors can make a case for "not germane" or "cannot be germane" as opposed to excluding because "possibly not germane" which obviously doesn't require an argument because everything's possible until shown otherwise. Something does not become un-germane absent a secondary source saying "this is germane"; we don't have a double-cite policy where one cite is needed to get something deemed reliable and a second cite is also needed to in turn cite the first cite.  What "conclusion" are you referring to?  I ask because No original research mentions "conclusion" when it refers to "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."  I see conclusions not stated by the sources on this Talk page, conclusions that appear as part of my argument for why readers coming to this article may be interested in the EiC's advocacy, but I don't see a "conclusion not stated by the sources" in the text at issue.  As for info about this publication's funding and the affiliations of most of their authors, I don't see the problem with presumptively including that sort of info, although the the authors likely have less direction over the publication than the EiC (in this case the EiC has served as both author and editor).  I return, again, to Wikipedia's basic raison d'être.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a cited source that refers to the journal? If not, then that's what's missing. Generally, this is done with one cited source, as you probably know. Again, the missing conclusion to be drawn (as you yourself said) is whether this or that fact, which might otherwise appear tangential, is drawn by a reliable source. It feels like you are asking me to repeat myself, but perhaps this clarification is helpful. Well, I see the same WP policy concern when you say "I don't see the problem with presumptively including that sort of info" (i.e., my examples of funding or university affiliation). This "presumption" is a filtering or intellectual judgment that constitutes part of what is meant by original research. Instead of us presuming that it's germane, we need to have a more explicit characterization of the link from a source. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the "missing conclusion"? You don't seem to be addressing the issue of whether the edit at issue makes that conclusion, which, if made, would indeed require a cited source.  As I explained above,  the material at issue is duly cited and we don't have a double-cite policy.  If we do, please point out where it is.  As for Wikipedia editors exercising their "intellectual judgment," I should hope so; see my comment about wikilinking below.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I found an example of a WP article that contains criticism of an environmental journal, so it can be done: . A newspaper criticism can suffice. HG | Talk 01:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Very good, but where, exactly, in the edit at issue here do you believe it "contains criticism"?--Brian Dell (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I called it criticism to be responsive to how you characterized it above (e.g., implying advocacy and pushing fringe theories). After all, I appreciate your insight into a possible editorial bias. But regardless of whether the inference is critical or not, the sentence (and the point of the sentence) contains content that is not germane to this article, at least not until we see a secondary source making the inference or linkage. The trick with Wikipedia is that we need to find somebody else saying the insights that we observe or intuit ourselves. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will repeat the questions: 1) why do you hold the opinion that it is not germane? Do you have any evidence that it is not germane?  Do you have any counter to the evidence I have presented that it is germane?  2) where, exactly, in the edit at issue here do you believe it "contains criticism"?  You mentioned WP:SYNTH.  Can we agree that SYNTH does not apply to Talk page commentary, ie whatever I said "above"?  Take a look at the typical Wikipedia article.  See all those wikilinks in it?  Is there "a secondary source" for every wikilink that proves that the editor who created the link was justified in drawing the connection?  No.  Not every "insight" needs "somebody else saying the insight".  Juxtaposing the EiC's advocacy and what the EiC edits, something other observers have done (see my "observation" below) is not SYNTH: we have a SYNTH policy that addresses the "need to find somebody else saying the insights that we observe or intuit ourselves" and it does not apply to the edit at issue.  See What_SYNTH_is_not, and the observation elsewhere in that essay that "the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception."
 * I'll make another observation here, but before doing so want to make it absolutely clear that this observation goes to the argument for why the EiC's advocacy is of reader interest and does not constitute an argument for having the article tell readers that this publication is questionable, which would indeed be SYNTH. The EiC at issue here, Carpenter, is also "co-editor of the 2012 (Bioinitiative) Report".  As you'll see from Wikipedia's article on the Bioinitiative_Report, as well as in David Gorski's review here, that Report is junk science.  I have not, however, been arguing that this article ought to say that this publication publishes junk science.  I've rather been calling for readers to be made aware of what's going on here, so they can decide if there's nothing to see here or not.  Are you telling me there's nothing to see here either, because there's some sort of firewall between the editor and the publication?  Gorski explicitly mentions Carpenter when discussing the "Bioinitiative Report": "Sage and Carpenter, authors of the introductory and concluding sections, clearly have their own political axes to grind. In a recent letter they emotionally attacked the World Health Organization and a major standards setting group..."  Gorski doesn't see a magic firewall between the editor and what he edits and neither do I.  Ultimately, however, I'm not saying there is or isn't a firewall, I'm saying there's no evidence for one, until we see some evidence, there's no evidence that the EiC's advocacy is not sufficiently relevant to be of reader interest.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Your proposed sentence (about Carpenter's views) is not germane because your sources say nothing about the Reviews editorial policy or why these facts have any bearing on the journal (i.e., the topic of this article). Look at WP:OR, original research "[This] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."  Thus, the sources must directly relate Carpenters views (or advocacy) to the journal itself. But your sources do not directly relate to the journal.
 * The edit says what the sources say. If the sources "say nothing about the Reviews editorial policy" then the edit says nothing about the editorial policy and there is no OR. You are reading into the edit at issue something which, if there, is also in the sources.  If the sources DO say something about the editorial policy then again is no OR here. --Brian Dell (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Your proposed sentence is implying a conclusion. You said as much yourself, in your edit summary, "Readers do care, however, about the editorial policy of this publication." But WP isn't about implying findings that aren't in the sources. So find a source that directly connects Carpenter's views to the editorial policy. It's not enough to say that he has an axe to grind -- you need to find a source that says that he's grinding that axe through the journal. Otherwise, it's mere inference and conjecture = an insight for original research.
 * No, it does not imply "a conclusion". It implies a possible conclusion, a possibility that readers should be allowed to exercise their judgment about.  It's indeed "mere inference and conjecture" - on your part - to contend that there is a conclusion here that is misinforming or misleading.  YOU need to "find a source that says that he's [NOT] grinding that axe through the journal" because you're the party saying that readers should not be allowed to consider that possibility.  See Let_the_reader_decide.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Frankly, the more you argue (rather than let your sources argue), the less persuasive your proposed edit. In your last sentence above, you ask for evidence of the non-relevance of X, else X should be inserted. This is wrong. It's the opposite of how a tertiary source is written. We don't throw in every X fact that might relate to a topic, we only add content that is directly related to the topic by a reliable secondary source. You also keep mentioning reader's interest. Wikipedia has no policy to cater to "readers' interest" and no policy to make readers aware of every X fact that is conceivably (or plausibly) related. On the contrary, we rely on secondary sources to determine the info to be shown to readers. We require facts to be directly related to the article -- by an outside, secondary source.
 * I'm going to quote from policy here: "Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers...". Never mind a "good" reason, I haven't seen a clearly delineated reason at all.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) If you don't mind my saying so, the other editors here (Everymorning, Randykitty, me) are against your proposed edit and against its implied relevance to editorial policy. The WP policy has been explained as clearly as we can. So, there is certainly no consensus to place your edit in article. It would be greatly appreciated if you would please not insert it into the article again. Thanks. HG | Talk 12:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind in the slightest you saying anything that's supported by the evidence. I think User:Everymorning can speak for him or herself and what he or she has said to date does not conclusively indicate that he or she is not satisfied with the answer given to his or her question.  I do not believe that the dispute here concerns my capacity to understand your "explain[ing]" any more that I doubt your ability to understand my explanations of policy.  I've explained many times that the edit at issue is not OR because it does not make claims unsupported by the sources.  If there is truly OR, you should be able to point out just what, within the edit at issue, is OR.  Look at the OR policy and you'll see some examples of OR with "X" marked next to them.  You should be able to quote the edit at issue here in full and perform the same critique if there is truly OR here.  I'm sure you fully understand what my quote of the WP:UNDUE in my last paragraph above says.  It's just a matter of whether you agree with me that it applies. It would be greatly appreciated if you at least assumed that it applied long enough for you to provide that "good reason" it asks for.  Thanks.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think the stuff about Carpenter doesn't belong here. It belongs in a bio on Carpenter. To me, the main problem here is actually Brian's reasoning: "It's clearly relevant because the editor in chief decides what this publication publishes." This indicates that Brian wants people to think Carpenter is publishing things supporting his personal views, which none of the cited sources say. If a source made a connection between what Carpenter thinks and what the journal has published, then it would be fine to include it. Also, Brian says, "The article should tell readers what the editorial policy of this publication is." Indeed, but none of the sources in Brian's edit discuss the journal's editorial policy or its relation to Carpenter's views. Everymorning   talk  21:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any objections to the edit at issue as opposed to objections to what I am inclined to believe? In reply to "none of the sources in Brian's edit" discuss what "Brian says" I say at issue here are edits, not editors.  Your connection between what you consider a dubious Talk page remark and an article problem does not follow.  Let's be clear here: what the EDIT causes "people to think" is the issue here, and if readers are invited to think at all here,  they are just as free to agree or disagree with me as ever.  What I object to is the demand that they MUST disagree with me, never mind that the added information is fully supported by what's cited.  I do not, in fact, "want people to think Carpenter is publishing things supporting his personal views," I want rather want them to not be force fed into concluding that the editor in chief does NOT decide what this publication publishes, as if that negative claim is supposed to not just be a default assumption but an assumption to be questioned at one's peril.  See the difference?  I'm not the party contending something without evidence or something that even flies of the face of contrary evidence, such as the positing of a magic firewall between editor and what's edited.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

My objections to the edit at issue is that it appears to be, as I said in December, a WP:COATRACK of material about Carpenter onto the article about the journal he is the co-editor of. What I want to know is what reason you have for including this information on this article as opposed to in an article about Carpenter. There is no doubt that editors of scientific journals control what is published in those journals. This is established simply by saying they are the editor in chief of it and does not require further information which doesn't really relate to Carpenter's role as editor of this journal. Everymorning  talk  03:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:COATRACK gives a list of "typical coatracks". Which one is this?  Let's see how similar the situation is here to the example given.  In my view, a fair reading of WP:COATRACK is that the extent to which the article dwells on the alleged diversion is a significant factor ("sheer volume", "many following paragraphs", "paragraph after paragraph", "endless paragraphs", "long lecture", "several paragraphs", "proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information").  Here, we've a handful of words.  My reason for thinking this should be in Wikipedia is because Wikipedia's basic job is providing information.  As for where in Wikipedia it occurs, reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which info should be fragmented across stub articles.  That's a navigability issue, and depends on one's criteria for independent article notability.  What I do not see is a magic dividing line between the current situation, where one clicks through "Bio-Initiative" report, and the scenario you say you prefer of clicking through Carpenter's name.  If it's an outrage to place material side by side with other material despite no Wiki text connecting the two, the connection being left to the reader, I should think it ought to at least cause minor concern to have Wiki continue to connect the two with a click of the mouse.  After all, isn't the reader not supposed to be going there?  There's supposed to be a magic firewall between editor and edited that readers are not to question, no?  You evidently believe there such a wall ("doesn't really relate") and it's fine to have that opinion, but let's see some evidence that Carpenter's "control" is simultaneously sufficient enough to call for his identification but insufficient enough to call for further info about what the sort of research he supports and advocates for.  It strikes me as an arbitrary drawing of the line that ought to be left to the informed reader.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

why was David Carpenter ever mentioned in the first place???
Here's a very basic question for all concerned: why is Carpenter mentioned at all in this article? I wasn't the one who made him an article topic. We've got three editors insisting that Carpenter is irrelevant to this publication. So why introduce him to the article? I keep getting the line that it says absolutely nothing about this publication that its EiC is one David O. Carpenter as opposed to one Wile E. Coyote. So why ID him? Are you not misleading readers into thinking it makes a difference if your doctrine requires you to contend, to me, that it makes no difference? A source mentioned Carpenter and this journal in the same breath, you say. So? The journal is also mentioned in the same breath with a zillion other things, like a specific piece within it whenever that specific piece is being cited, and that's presumably not ripe for inclusion because grabbing any particular one of those zillion things wouldn't tell the whole story. But this does?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Brian Dell -- the editor-in-chief is included in line with standard protocol for academic journals. See WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide.
 * Brian Dell, please ASAP remove your inclusion, again, of info about Carpenters views, e.g., the Bioinitiative link. In my view, this constitutes edit-warring and should be reported to 3RR or ANI. The views of other editors of this page, User:Randykitty and User:Everymorning, oppose your edit for WP policy reasons, as do I, for which I provided a WP:3PO. Thanks! HG | Talk 15:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, then, HG, don't let me stop you from doing what "should be" done, namely, reporting me to 3RR. I have to laugh, though, at this idea that reverting my edit, now days after I made it, would be too confrontational for you (never mind that you're convinced the community is overwhelmingly in favour such a reversion) but threatening to get me banned from the project, well, that's just part of the oh-so-gracious "please" and "thanks!" spirit!  No, I'm not going to self-revert until you pointedly address that element of policy I quoted, namely, "Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers...  Not because I'm not interested in doing someone a favour when it's asked for nicely, but because this info neither misinforms nor misleads.  It's just business, my friend.  Speaking of which, I find it interesting you call attention to that essay, because even if, with no small indulgence, we assume that this is an "academic journal" on the same level as the journals the essay author has in mind, it seems to undermine your argument by calling for "independent reliable sources discussing their involvement with the journal" for pretty much everyone EXCEPT the EiC!  In my view, this essay takes away from the magic firewall between EiC and his or her publication notion instead of supporting it.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I arrived here because of the discussion on WT:OR. But looks to me like the problem has been solved by the recent creation of a bio for Carpenter. Anyone interested in the editorial policy of the journal can reasonably be expected to click on that link. So I'd suggest that any further work on Carpenter take place there. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Energy in Depth
I can't but note the hypocrisy of lecturing me about how inclusion decisions must be outsourced to external editors, lest we be engaging in "original research", but then when the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly the Wikipedia editor regains full sovereignty to exercise their originality and deviate from the inclusion decisions of external editors. National Geographic, which is hardly friendly to an organization like Energy in Depth, quotes Carpenter and then turns to Energy in Depth for not one but several quotes. This sort of editorial judgment is apparently too even-handed for Randykitty, whose editorial judgment holds that Energy in Depth is "unusable". Never mind that US News, which shares Nat Geo's POV lean, does the same thing, citing a "study" appearing in the publication that is the topic of this article, quoting Carpenter, and then noting that "Energy in Depth dismissed it as 'scientifically dubious.'" May I ask why we should not cite them when the editors of Bloomberg News are choosing to cite them? Al Jazeera quotes them. CBS News quotes them, as does the LA Times. Ditto USA Today and the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. Forbes hands over an entire column to them. Scientific American does not just use them but directly links to criticism that appears on energyindepth.org.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP is not a newspaper but an encyclopedia. We only use sources that are reliable sources. This particular one calls itself a "campaign" and has an axe to grind. It's perfectly fine for newspapers, magazines, and TV stations to give place to their opinions, as such outlets often publish columns with opinions. Note that in the examples that you give above, those outlets just cite Energy in Depth's opinions, without giving any independent judgment on them. WP is different, though and this source is not acceptable here. --Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but those "outlets" are RS. "WP is different" because Wikipedia is supposed to insert WIkipedia's independent judgment, unlike these RS?  This from the person who has been insisting that a Wikipedian exercising his judgment to include RS-cited material (that said exactly what the RS indicated) would be exercising too much editorial judgment and accordingly engaging in "original research".  Scientific American most certainly DID exercise its independent editorial judgment when it decided to quote and link to Energy in Depth as opposed to John Q Public.  I note with no small irony that Energy in Depth is in fact referred to in more RS (the usage of Energy in Depth that I pointed out above is just from the last couple months) than the publication that is the topic of this article and which you are so desperately trying to present to the reader, in a "campaign" of your own, as being in the highest tier of RS, a disseminator of peer-reviewed, scholarly research that could not possibly have its own "axe to grind".  You keep moving the goal posts: originally claiming irrelevant (as if, per Content_removal, we had "tigers" together with "light bulbs"), then switching to "original research" when I showed on this Talk page how some readers may find a great deal of relevance, and now finally you are misrepresenting the issue at hand by acting like the edit at issue is "This publication's credibility is questionable" which is a very different RS citation question relative to what the edit really is, namely, that Energy and Depth, whose partisan affiliation is fully disclosed in the text, has made a claim that Wikipedia is clearly agnostic about.
 * I will certainly grant that this is not my preferred approach to informing the reader because it has some analogies to creating a criticism section which I try to avoid, but you have adamantly refused to entertain anything less than explicit fingers simultaneously pointing at both Carpenter and this publication, calling a less in-your-face approach "original research" because it was a Wikipedia editor who dared to dial it down. It's clear to me that the reason you now want to crank it UP even higher by suggesting that anything less than an even more definitive final "judgement" on the matter would be un-"encyclopedic" (a more even-handed and less "judgment"al approach being too "newspaper"-like), is because you are resolved to raise the bar until the possibility of any reader doubt about the neutrality and scientific prestige of this publication has been reduced to nil, the bet being that by contending that only extreme options are available to Wikipedia, your preferred extreme of not even a hint of controversy will be preferred over the other extreme of settling the controversy unambiguously and decidedly against the article topic.  The alternative edit, "Carpenter is also a co-editor of the 2012 Bioinitiative Report", was as "encyclopedic" and removed in tone as one can get, yet because you refused to compromise enough to allow even the slightest hint of controversy (only discoverable through a wiki-link to Bionitiative Report), you called my practice of editorial reserve (I've been aware of Energy in Depth since before I ever came to this article) "original research" and asked for what I've now given to you, causing you to make yet another demand, this time that the controversy be settled (ie weighed in on by such an authoritative authority that no controversy may remain) if it is to be mentioned!  I will add here that Identifying_reliable_sources is crystal clear in contradicting what you say is or is not RS: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."--Brian Dell (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two routes to possible inclusion because there's a difference between (#1) a fact or an expert assessment -- i.e., whether Carpenter's bias undermines the journal's credibility -- and (#2) a merely partisan allegation about his bias. So far, there doesn't seem to be any RS for #1. Instead, what we have so far is #2 an allegation by a partisan source. IIRC, we don't want to give weight to every allegation published by a partisan source. Instead, we wait for #1 or until solid Reliable Sources report on the allegations as a (presumably because newsworthy) controversy. Perhaps this allegation will pick up steam and rise to a level that it merits inclusion here. Meanwhile, we don't want Wikipedia out in front, repeating the allegation without any RS to either validate it (#1 above) or to show that it merits inclusion (#2). Compare to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." See also WP:BLPREMOVE. Hope my view is clear. Thanks! HG | Talk 06:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE: "Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers". I have asked you several times to indicate how readers are being misinformed or mislead by any of my edits and you've declined to answer.  I believe I have already addressed your remarks here with my comments above about how this notion that either it is an indisputable "fact" or it gets deleted is a False dilemma.  WP:RS gives the example of "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."  Do you think that no reasonable person is going to dispute what a politician believes?  It is simply not the case that noting what Energy in Depth believes implies any necessary endorsement of the belief by Wikipedia.  WIkipedia is not "getting out front" when it is making the same editorial decisions that publications like Scientific American have made.  Wikipedia is, however, "getting out front" of the RS by refusing to balance and present all sides like the RS I have pointed to have.  It's debatable whether Goldwater's opinion - which RS indicates may be included - would constitute as "expert assessment", but even if we assume so as you seem to ("expert assessment" being the bar to be hurdled for inclusion according to you) we should be following the lead of the RS, and looking to them for guidance on what constitutes an expert assessment instead of substituting our own editorial judgment or doing our own original research with regard to who provides expert assessments and who doesn't.  By the way, I'm going to ask you to stop contending that "partisan" means "poor source" when WP:RS clearly says that that is not true.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP considerations

 * Since Carpenter is a living person and the allegations are poorly sourced, I have asked WP:BLPN to look at this situation. Please continue to discuss this in good faith and in a civil manner. Thank you. HG | Talk 06:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find the U turn you have taken with respect to Carpenter's relevance to this article remarkable. After arguing with me at length to contend that this article has nothing to do with Carpenter such that any information about him beyond naming him as EiC is not to be allowed, you now seem to believe that the credibility of Reviews on Environmental Health can't be questioned without questioning Carpenter to the same extent: you could have removed Carpenter's name so that Reviews on Environmental Health gets questioned without any reference to Carpenter instead of deleting any questioning of Reviews on Environmental Health as well.  Why didn't you if you truly believe it is a BLP issue?  I note that you could also solve your BLP issue by switching it back to "Carpenter is also a co-editor of the 2012 Bioinitiative Report."  Then there'd be no need to have Energy in Depth pointing out that indisputable fact (that Carpenter is a co-editor of the 2012 Bioinitiative Report) and then spelling out for the reader (incorrectly or unfairly according to you) what that means.
 * As for good faith, I think you could shore up the appearance of that some more by being more consistent in what you call for. You cited Energy & Environment as the appropriate model yet that article spends no small amount of time on the beliefs and affiliations of its EiC (in a rather transparent effort to portray her as a highly biased EiC, something she no doubt is in my view but which you consider a BLP violation).  It even makes an issue out of the associations of "several members of the journal's editorial advisory board" despite you referring me to WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Writing_guide which says editorial boards "have little impact on the daily operations of the journal".  The editorial board isn't even worthy of mention according to that 'writing guide' "unless there are independent reliable sources discussing their involvement with the journal in more than an in-passing way" yet the absence of these called-for independent sources didn't stop you from telling me I should be editing this article as that one has been edited.  How does the fair minded observer avoid concluding that your standards change when the EiC changes from industry-friendly to industry-opposed?--Brian Dell (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the Energy & Environment article's criticisms are backed by better sources (e.g., Chronicle of Higher Education, The Guardian). So far, there's aren't good sources to justify WP mentioning allegations against this journal based on its EIC.  FWIW, your extended comments about me, or how I should or do think, are unpersuasive and unhelpful, even for your sake. Please depersonalize and stick to the basic policy reasons for or against a proposed edit, thanks. HG | Talk 16:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As for depersonalization, absolutely, do not state that I "seek to demonstrate or imply that David O. Carpenter is a biased editor-in-chief" when the evidence suggests otherwise, exhibit A being that I could have drawn on Energy in Depth trying to do that at the very beginning instead of making the effort I did to present the material without anyone anywhere rendering a judgement on the material. In terms of my motivations, any implication that Carpenter is "biased" is an effect, not a cause, of my actions.  The only person inside my head is myself.  My making an issue of your inconsistency is not "personalization", however, as I'm asking you to clarify your motivation given that you're making a priority out of this supposed BLP violation while another "academic" doesn't just get accused of bias obliquely or briefly, but repeatedly and extensively with the BULK of that not being cited to either the Guardian or the  Chronicle of Higher Education.  Indeed, if those two "back" anything, they back 10% of that article.  I would think you would not be pointing to that article as a model if 90% of it were a BLP violation.  The point of this line of inquiry is to find out what your standard really is, given that it seems to shift.  We could then see if that standard could be satisfied such that the dispute could be resolved (this is not to concede that your satisfaction, as opposed to WIkipedia's standards, is all we are here to observe, but to move in your direction instead of my just demanding that you, or anyone else, move towards me).  By the way, what does it gain me to "stick to the basic policy reasons" when I point to policy like "reliable sources are not required to be neutral" or "Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads" and you just ignore that, instead throwing out some guy's opinion that he thinks it's not "appropriate", regardless of what policy says?  We don't need just another opinion.  I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know which way the votes go with respect to industry vs environment disputes.  That doesn't mean I can't demand more than just a vote, and specifically an explanation for why Wikipedia should be presenting only one side when so many RS are presenting both.  We should not be blazing our own trail by treating this publication as the source for the final word if external editors like those at Scientific American are not.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your source is not reliable on this matter, it is making a biased and unsubstantiated allegation. (So, while there are situations where a reliable source need not be neutral, your source does not rise to that level.) Unreliable allegations are prima facie likely to misinform or mislead -- and need to be removed anyway since unreliable. This isn't only my view, please listen to the other editors who have commented. You lack consensus for your repeated insertions of this material. HG | Talk 03:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "reliable sources are not required to be neutral". That's RS policy, and it's community policy.  Local consensus does not overturn RS policy when there's no interpretation issue re what policy is saying.  Having a POV does not equal not reliable.  I'm very confident of what the community consensus is on that.  If the source were not reliable, Scientific American, the WSJ, etc would not be using it as a counterpoint.  You claim "unsubstantiated".  Let's see you support for your claim, support that proves the editors of Sci Am mistaken about this source.  Let's see your point-by-point demonstration that there is no substance to this.  I'll add here that the cite at issue is fully attributed and the affiliation of the source disclosed, such that readers can form their own judgement about the relevance of the affiliation without you deciding for them.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A source is not "reliable" in the abstract, on anything. It is reliable relative to certain matters. For instance, Scientific American is not reliable on Christian theology. Various editors are explaining to you that this industry publication is not reliable as it pertains to these allegations. I'm sorry if that's not clear, I'm explaining as best I can. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And what is the "matter" here? Christian theology or Reviews on Environmental Health vs Energy in Depth? It's the latter, is it not?  Now what makes Scientific American unreliable when it chooses to treat these two as "he said, she said" such that we should be deviating from that practice?  Why is this "industry publication" (I dare to point out, not the affiliations, but the more direct actual stated views of someone on the environment side, Carpenter, and you call that totally irrelevant, but the affiliations of the opposing side, those affiliations are not just relevant but of such consequence they turn the Poisoning the well fallacy into a non-fallacy?) more widely cited that the object of its criticism if that object is to be elevated - by Wikipedia in defiance of what other RS are doing - above criticism?  There has, in fact, been no "explaining", there's instead been a great lot of insinuation going on about the "industry lobby", as if it's our job to shut up this dreaded lobby.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments copied from WP:BLPN

 * This situation is pretty clearly covered by WP:WELLKNOWN: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article&mdash;even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (emphasis in original). In this case, the allegations appear to be sourced solely to an oil-and-gas lobbying group with an obvious agenda. Unless these allegations receive substantive coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, they do not belong in the article, according to our WP:BLP policy. (Note that the WELLKNOWN provisions apply to public figures; arguably, Carpenter is not a public figure and thus would qualify for even more stringent protection against poorly sourced accusations). MastCell Talk 17:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the use of that source would be appropriate in this context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "WELLKNOWN provisions apply to public figures; arguably, Carpenter is not a public figure". Well then, WELLKNOWN doesn't apply then, does it, and whatever policy DOES apply should be applied.  You and Mastcell liked that one clause so you cherry picked it, never mind that it clearly doesn't apply given the context ("In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources" such that if something about a public figure is not covered, it's presumptively because of a conscious editorial decision to not cover it, something that doesn't apply here, meaning that there's no evidence RS don't find the material at issue in this article noteworthy, indeed, quite the opposite, as when RS call attention to something in Review on Environmental Health, they typically seek out Energy in Depth for the rest of the picture).  I'll also note that Mastcell didn't like discussing this issue anywhere except over at the BLP Noticeboard, yet you've brought it over here, something that would be understandable, HG, if you weren't the one to send it over to BLPN in the first place.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Without a reliable independent source asserting that he is biased (and in this case it would need to be a source specialising in the scientific literature in this field), it's WP:OR. His views are entirely at odds with the scientific consensus, and that may well end up going badly for him, but it hasn't yet and we're not here to blaze the trail. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing the name of the editor does not make the claims about bias, based on an industry campaign, appropriate for this article. If these claims were significant enough to be mentioned in the article, some third party would have reported on them. By now a plethora of editors has agreed that the given source is unsuitable; I do not think that can be fixed by slightly tweaking what it's cited for. I'd advise Brian Dell to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Huon (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd advise Huon to acknowledge "reliable sources are not required to be neutral" instead of just ignoring it. I am not inclined to drop that crystal clear policy in favour of having Wikipedia set it self up as the push back to "an industry campaign" when all those RS out there that I cited are using this source as a fair counterpoint.  We are not here to save the world from "industry."  We're here to inform readers, and to do so from the neutral point of view.  I suggest opening your mind to the possibility what you call "an industry campaign" is in fact a counterpoint to someone else's campaign.  If it is so lacking in "significance", then why are you devoting your reverting energies to insignificant matters?  In fact when Reviews_on_Environmental_Health gets a mention in RS, it is quite typical to have a counterpoint from Energy in Depth, contrary to your assertion that third parties are ignoring this source viz-a-viz the article subject.  I do not agree that there is a consensus the source in not RS, as at least one editor on the noticeboard said what you call an "industry" source may be used in some circumstances.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue of neutrality of reliable sources would be relevant if this were a reliable source in the first place. There's not much of an indication it is. Regarding "industry", that's what your own sources, say U.S. News, call Energy in Depth. It's a trade group cited for the industry's position, not for a factual assessment of their opposition's reliability. In fact, U.S. News calls your specific source, "writing on the trade group’s blog". If there is a reliable third-party source covering the criticism of Reviews on Environmental Health, please present it. If all there is is some trade group's blog, we should not cover the issue (and I do not consider keeping Wikipedia free from insignificant POVs itself insignificant). Huon (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And the edit you reverted isn't giving their "position"? The edit at issue does not purport to provide an "assessment" that's "factual".  It's an "assessment", right or wrong, of interest to readers.  For Wikipedians so inclined to hand wring over someone on the environment side having their BLP protections violated by suggesting that someone may have a POV that's relevant to their publication editing, I think these editors could afford to be a little more charitable about the extent to which they presume those on the other side of the debate are a gang of misleading fraudsters.  I have zero objections to calling it a "blog" on Wikipedia if your contention is that failing to so describe would depart too far from how RS are using this source.  Do note, however, that Scientific American linked directly to that "blog".  From scientificamerican.org. There's also a direct link from time.com.  Google reports "energy in depth" appearing on nytimes.com 27 times.  They've testified before Congress and are cited by a Subcommittee for facts.  This journal article: 47 Rocky Mt Min L Fdn J 277-345 cites energyindepth.org four times.  12 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 339 (2013) also cites and in neither article is there even any use of any in-text attribution.  Why does an Oil and Gas Journal article cite your unreliable source?   The U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Q&A on fracking lists energyindepth.org under "References".  John R. Duda, Director, Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil at the National Energy Technology Laboratory has energyindepth.org as a reference.  Duda has "a Master of Science Degree in Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering from West Virginia University and has 30 years of experience".  But he (and I) are violating your RS standards by daring to think that what appears on energyindepth.org may be presented to the public?  Care to share your credentials with us,, so that we can see if we should be substituting your opinion (or any Wikipedian's, for that matter) on the reliability of this source for Duda's?--Brian Dell (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are going to tell me that there is an editor consensus to keep "industry"'s position out of Wikipedia, I'll certainly grant that. This is the same Wikipedia that shut itself down for a day by editor consensus in order to lobby Congress against the media content industry.  Editors can rationalize pretty much anything if they think their cause is just.  That doesn't mean I cannot point out the mockery it makes of WP:NPOV.  If you think I should be banned from Wikipedia for dissenting from the majority view via my editing then take it to an admin noticeboard so there isn't any ambiguity about how Wikipedia perceives "industry".  Reliable sources use Energy in Depth in the same way it is being used here by using it as a counterpoint to the otherwise simply presumed authoritativeness of the publication that is the subject of this article.  The editorial judgement of these RS, which sees fit to present both sides in this way, should be deferred to.  If you don't like having this publication criticized like it is for stylistic reasons, well, I don't like it either, but when I accordingly stripped down the "industry" criticism to the bare facts in it, I was accused of engaging in "original research."  If we could agree that dialing down the charge to something milder would be fair editing, there's an alternate solution right there.  Purging ANYTHING that dares to even hint that what you find in this publication might possibly not be neutrally presented scientific research of the highest order is not a solution, however, but an anti-"industry" campaign.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I could find direct links to The Onion from the New York Times, too - that alone does not make a source reliable. I have quoted third-party sources' opinions of this specific blog post. The links you present above look somewhat impressive until one reads them: "industry trade group Energy in Depth", "Energy In Depth, a program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. The IPAA represents natural gas and oil producers.", "pro-oil and gas-drilling group Energy in Depth", "Disclosure: Mr. Everley serves as team lead for Energy In Depth, a research and education program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. The IPAA is an oil and gas trade association.", "Energy in Depth, a pro–oil and gas publication", "oil and gas advocacy group Energy in Depth", "industry research arm Energy in Depth". There's a pretty strong consensus among third-party sources - your own third-party sources - that Energy in Depth represents the industry and is a pro-oil and gas trade group. That doesn't scream "reliable source on the appropriateness of the methods of those who criticize the oil and gas industry" to me. If anything, we should use the U.S. News article, a third-party source, to report on this dispute. I'll rewrite our coverage to that effect. Huon (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of what it does or doesn't "scream" to YOU. At issue is what it says to all the reliable sources I have pointed to, and "unusable" is not what it says to them.  Our usage ought to be inline with the typical usage.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The "typical usage" is to use them as spokespeople for the industry's position on disputes. They're not seriously considered a reliable source for facts. If you disagree, try WP:RSN to see whether that blog post should be considered reliable. Huon (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say PR Newswire used them as a reliable source for facts here and linked directly to what you (and US News) call a "blog post" in their "news release." However, that usage may be atypical, and I accordingly presented EiD's criticism of the subject of this article more as what you call their "position" than as undisputed "fact".  The New York Times called EiD " a research and education arm of the Independent Petroleum Association of America" and I used almost the exact same phrasing.  I will add here that the reason why more disputes between the subject of this article and its critics are not appearing in the media is because the media doesn't consider Reviews on Environmental Health reliable!  That US News writer who did cite this publication is one of the few media authors who is inclined to believe that fracking causes cancer just because Reviews on Environmental Health said so.  The media has also been declining to cite the subject of this article to warn us that WiFi causes cancer and the reason is not because media consumers wouldn't be interested in that if true. --Brian Dell (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PR Newswire is a publisher of press releases, in this case a press release of Energy in Depth. I don't doubt they're using themselves as a source, but I fail to see how you can conclude anythig about their reliability. Huon (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)