Talk:American Petroleum Institute: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 69:

::Sources need not be unbiased; the possibility of bias is addressed in full compliance with our project's policies including [[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]] via in-text attribution. When a noteworthy source characterizes a subject of an article as "one of the most" it is almost certainly noteworthy. What is your basis in policy or guideline for repeatedly deleting this contribution? [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 20:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

::: ''MJ is clearly biased, and it is not clear at all that the view is notable''. What is your source for your assertion that MJ's view is notable? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

::::''[[Mother Jones (magazine)]]'' is an award-winning source of investigative journalism; please see [[Mother Jones (magazine)#Awards]]. ''[[Mother Jones (magazine)]]'' is noteworthy as a source of investigative journalism on environmental issues. Harkinson and ''Mother Jones'' were among the first anywhere to write about climate change denial as organized, something we understand and take for granted today. '''We are asked to consider [[WP:USEBYOTHERS]] in evaluating the noteworthiness of sources.'''

::::*{{cite book |editor1-last=Dryzek |editor1-first=John S. |editor1-link=John Dryzek |editor2-first=Richard B. |editor2-last=Norgaard |editor2-link=Richard Norgaard |editor3-first=David |editor3-last=Schlosberg |title=The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=2011 |isbn=9780199683420 |page=153 |chapter=Organized Climate Change Denial |chapter-url=http://scottvalentine.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/dunlap_cc_denial.302183828.pdf |last1=Dunlap |first1=Riley E. |first2=Aaron M. |last2=McCright}}

::::The Oxford Handbook is a noteworthy reference on the sociology of climate change edited by noteworthy editors and published by a noteworthy publisher. The Dunlap and McCright chapter is one of the founding papers of the area of study of organized climate change denial within the discipline of environmental sociology. Another Harkinson ''[[Mother Jones (magazine)]]'' article is cited as well. It is highly significant that an academic paper cited mainstream media articles before there were many academic papers to cite. The record in noteworthy reliable sources is clear that ''[[Mother Jones (magazine)]]'' and Harkinson helped all of us, including academia, recognize that climate change denial is organized and a legitimate object of study.

::::You have deleted the clause "among the most prominent organizations" three times in recent days, rendering our project's summarization of the source inaccurate, so inaccurate as to be non-neutral, in the direction of favorable to the subject, with the following edit summaries:

::::#{{diff2|715432976|14:21 15 April 2016}} "MJ isn't neutral, so don't quote too much from them#"

::::#{{diff2|715439642|15:12 15 April 2016}} "nah, as before"

::::#{{diff2|715577101|13:09 16 April 2016}} "BRD. Ever heard of it?"

::::Please clarify your edit summaries, thank you. ''What is your basis in policy or guideline for reducing the accuracy of our project's summarization of attributed content?'' I find no basis in policy or guideline for reducing or "softening" an attributed claim, on the basis of possible bias or notability or anything else. If we suspect a source of bias, we are asked to attribute in-text, not to mis-quote it;. ifIf we think a source non-noteworthy, we are asked to exclude it, not mis-quote it. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 22:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

::{{replyto|William M. Connolley}} you wrote "...it is not clear at all that the view is notable." The subject of this article is in our category [[:Category:Climate change skepticism and denial]]. Here we have a noteworthy reliable source expressing the significant view that the subject of this article is ''among the most prominent'' members of that category. The source is distinguishing the subject of this article from all other members of its category; this is the very essence of identifying and including content that supports notability and is therefore [[WP:DUE]]. Thank you. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 17:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

::: Answering a question about noteworthiness by simply asserting that the source is noteworthy is circular illogic [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 18:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)