Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri/Archive 1

Not a Nobel

The way article's Nobel Price section is written is as if Pachauri got the prize. It is rather more based on effort of entire IPCC over the years and not just current head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.166.51.6 (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Pachauri is not a Nobel Prize winner - he is just the current head of the organization which has been awarded the Nobel Peace prize for this year. Just because he accepts the award on the organizations behalf does not make him a Nobel Laureate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genius1000 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Vague credentials

I don't see a link to his credentials as a scientist. All I can find is that he has a Doctorate in economics. I can't help but notice his educational background is completely missing. I wonder why? Traumatic (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a section on his education which an unregistered user seems to have deleted without anyone noticing. I've now restored the section. It could do with a few more references. Dahliarose (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I till don;t see any credentials as a climate or environmental *scientist*. Does he have any dgerees in thos subjects or formal training? if not his bio should not be puffed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.12.10 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The academic background of Mr Pachauri is quite hard to figure out from the article. It has degrees, but not the areas of expertise. "Was educated at...", "appointed professor in October..." is vague. Finally, we have the economics and industrial engineering. All this could be more obvious. I am led to conclude that Mr Pachauri is nothing but an administrator. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If he were a skeptic, he'd be derided as a cranky know-nothing without any qualifications or expertise in climate science and "links to" the fossils industry. But then, so too would be Al Gore.82.71.30.178 (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest adding current activities/quotes: China, India, Brasil, South Africa vital for climate deal

"UN: Climate Deal Depends on India, China, Brazil, South Africa" [1] http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/UN-Climate-Deal-Depends-on-India-China-Brazil-South-Africa-79988117.html

"China, India, South Africa vital for climate deal" [2] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jonTQv-XfLSb-A_U63qtXofmqt2gD9COVQ700 (AP) ... post-COP-15 99.54.142.91 (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Add cat: Category:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Hi admins,

I would like to add this person to the category, Category:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but I cannot because the page is fully protected.

Could one of you do it?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

{{hat}} Discussion on text on conflicts of interest resolved Richard Tol (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Climategate: with business interests like these are we really sure Dr Rajendra Pachauri is fit to head the IPCC?

Is this something to consider adding? "This is the real reason why so many big businessmen, bankers, politicians, scientists – led, of course, by Al Gore – are backing stiffer, pan-global governmental legislation on carbon emissions. Because there are such stupendous quantities of money to be made." [3] (archived 2009-12-14)? Nsaa (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Has this been researched? Is this the same person? http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/290167/ Old World Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs India Habitat Centre on 23 August, 1996 JUDGMENT K. Ramamoorthy, J. 144 In the light of these facts I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that these three Officers Mr. Bhatnagar, Mr. Pachauri and Mr. Dinesh Mehta have suppressed material facts and they have sworn to false affidavits. <snip> And I am afraid, that the affairs and the efficient management of the Centre are not safe in the hands of officers like Mr. K. K. Bhatnagar, Dr. R.K. Pachauri arid Mr. Dinesh Mehta and they had ignored that the officers have to function as a public functionaries within the parameters of the Constitution.24.87.71.192 (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Business and Profesional Info

I believe is worth reading the following article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngcb (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rv Monckton: why

I've removed [4]. Monckton is a far-out GW skeptic; the fact that he disagrees with RKP is neither surprising nor notable. The "open letter" is trash. We should not be linking to it (except on Moncktons page, if necessary) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That is your point of view is it not? That is not a neutral position to take. My edit stated that their was a call for his resignation. And it was due to his conflict of interest.

So without prejudice tell me why you undid my edit? mark nutley (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at WP:BLP (I'm not going to fight you on that issue but be aware that other people will; so you need to be aware of it). There are many famous people and many non-famous people say things about the famous people. That doesn't mean that the biog's of all the famous people should be filled with non-notable sniping. In this case, the source appears to be totally non-notable; there isn't any hint that this has been picked up by the mainstream media. Furthermore, Lord M's biases are well known (also the letter is full of nonsense) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)al

Ok i have looked at wp:blp and i can see noting in there which says that just because you think lord monckton is a bit "far out" then his letter should be discounted as a valid referance source. It also does not matter if the letter has not been picked up by the MSM, that is besides the point. You have yet to make a non biased and reasoned argument for undoing my edit.

While looking over the rules i came across this one [[5]]

Does this rule not mean that you should not edit any climate related articles as you have a vested interest in AGW? I cite your work at hadley cru and your affiliation to real climate. mark nutley (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark Nutley, as an editor somewhat skeptical of global warming theories, I do agree with William M. Connolley here, and I believe he has correctly appealed to our policy for biographies of living people. You may like to visit my talk page to discuss this further, and learn more about the situation, but please, respectfully, cease in your attempts to add controversial material to Dr. Pachauri's Wikipedia biography. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have asked you a question on your talk page alex. However i do not see how i am adding controversial material to the article. Just the truth. Also what is your opinion with regards to williams conflict of interest regarding climate change? mark nutley (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

GoRight's edit here to put in a piece of information from The Daily Telegraph news (not a blog or sub-article) to say that a hereditary peer and an australian senator are calling for his resignation because of conflicts of interest seems reasonable to me. I came here and just linked a couple of names and seemed to have got caught in some kind of ongoing thing. I reverted this reversion because the rationale "per GoRight" is obviously false, GoRight did not undo his inclusion of this material per the first difference I've provided. I undid the second reversion because the summary "rv per WP:BLP; Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" is obviously false - the source is from The Daily Telegraph news (not a blog or sub-article) and BLP says be very firm about the use of high quality sources, which TDM surely is. I won't touch it again for a bit though I do think it should be there.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added two additional sources. Hopefully this will resolve any questions over the sourcing. --GoRight (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Its trash. I've removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing disputes are expected to be settled by reasoned civil discourse, and editors are expected to base their arguments as to content upon what can be verified, without introducing their own arguments, analyses, hypotheses, and conclusions, from reliable and independent sources. The Neutral Point of View requires that we make the best efforts to leave our innate prejudices at the door when we edit here, be they political, social, geographic, linguistic, cultural, or otherwise. Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy indeed recommends that we actively attempt to include points of view that counter our own prejudices.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And the neutral point of view does specify that we cannot consider a single view important here, unless there is significant coverage. There isn't. Combined with our rules on biographies about living persons this is a breach - Monckton is quite frankly an extremist, who believes the worlds governments are out to create a new socialist worldorder. Yes we have some newscoverage (one line in the telegraph) - but certainly not anywhere near taking it serious. Translate all this down - and you get WMC's terse "its trash". Notice also that all of you have restored the sentence "Calls for" (ie. multiple) well-knowing that this isn't the case (a very clear BLP breach). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, setting aside Monckton and Fielding's call for his resignation, the conflict of interest is getting coverage. Pachauri has publicly responded to these claims of conflict of interest Times of India article. Apart from the sources already used, the conflict of interest theme is picked up by Business Standard, India Express, China View, The Australian.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is all there is - then it is very insignificant coverage. As it brings up some rather substantial accusations - it falls under the red-flag clause, and thus it doesn't belong in BLP. If there is anything to it - then i'm sure time will tell. (notice btw. that these quote the telegraph for it - and that Pachauri rejects the claims). Do remember please that we have no deadline on Wikipedia - we are an encyclopedia not the news. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it enough? I didn't look for more than the apparently mainstream news results, avoiding the blogs, for anything other than the search term "Pachauri "conflict of interest", should I look for more? REDFLAG is a summary of Fringe Theory content guideline, not a policy document. "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." There are reports that Pachauri has a conflict of interest which he has publicly replied to. I agree that Wikipedia is not news, and that, indeed, there is no deadline, we must get the article right, but I do not agree that the reports of Pachauri having a conflict of interest and his public reply is subject to being a fringe theory.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Red flags are not only in the case of fringe theories (its a "see also" not a summary). We have surprising claims [that Pachauri should benefit financially as opposed to be on the board] thats even mentioned in most of the sources. And Pachauri is rather open about those connections, and states that it is false. It is apparently not covered by most mainstream sources. When i look at Google News - it looks very much like a short News burst, and very far from significant coverage (which is rather more than a single mention). Lets see if this changes, or if any of the State leaders react to the open-letter. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It is possibly only a short news burst, we have agreed we are in no hurry. The information would be better introduced along the lines of 'In December 2009 Pachauri addressed claims of having a conflict of interest...' so those who read that there might be some conflict of interest can see it has been addressed.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim it is not your place to brand anyone an "extremist" you are allowing you personal views to cloud your judgement.

There is more than one line in the telegraph article.

The use of "Calls" is right as it is more than one person who signed the open letter.

Pachauri`s positions on the boards of multiple companys are available for anyone to see, you just need to google the ones mentioned in the telegraph article .

If however you feel it requires more than one viewpoint it is easy enough to get links to all of pachauris jobs :) like this for instance mark nutley (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not controversial to call Monckton extremist in his views. (its not very hard to find reliable sources for that - is it?) You are conflating issues: Pachauri's position on boards has nothing to do with the resignation call (except that Monckton uses it as an excuse) - i hardly even think that it is controversial (or in any way hidden - as we can see from your link) that he is on those boards. As for "Calls" - who has signed the letter - can you find a reliable source (Fielding isn't even on it)? But it still doesn't make it "call(s)" - it is one letter => is one call. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice that there are 3 different unrelated items here:

1. P is director or on the board of several companies [unsurprising, and common knowledge (if you check)]
2. P should personally benefit finacially. [surprising claim - Source: Telegraph/Monckton - confirmed by no other source.]
3. there is a call for P's resignation [minority view: apparently only Monckton+Fielding]

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that makes no sense at all. p has set up carbon trading offices world wide. Therefore there is no surprising claim that he will make money. If you honestly think it is ok for the chairman of the ipcc to profit from the science he pushs and not consider it a conflict of interest then there is no reasoning with you is there? Your pushing of your personal point of view on this issue is plain to see and i feel my original edit can stand. I have yet to see a non biased reason as to why it may not. Also, you told me blogs may not be used in blp`s as sources. However you wrote something entirely different in this talk page [[6]] So please clarify, can i use a blog to support edits if accompanied by other sources? Thank you mark nutley (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Then by that logic the edit should stand if it reads "There has been an open letter written by lm and the senator calling for his dismissal" Also it does not matter if Lord Monckton is regarded as an "extremist" by others, for that is a point of view. This seems to me to be correct view with regards to this issue. The facts are the facts after all, Both your and wmc`s personal [[7]] is blatantly obvious to all and sundry. However i am willing to learn from this and shall consider the matter closed once a non biased pov is put forward clearly stating why this should not remain in the article. Thank you mark nutley (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again willy you are allowing your bias to overcome your supposed neutral point of view in wikipedia. Might i suggest you refrain from editing climate change related pages due to your inability to remain neutral. You say, "it`s trash" However is is entirely factual and just because your pov does not like the facts does not mean you should edit it. Goright has agreed with me that the sources were reputable. Explain please from a neutral pov why they are trash? Thank you. mark nutley (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Might i suggest... - no William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No you won`t stop your editing or no you won`t give a valid reason for doing so? mark nutley (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No you may not make that suggestion William M. Connolley (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough :) However you have still to give a valid reason for this particular edit. It would appear to me that you are still pushing your pov on this section. Thank you mark nutley (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not a wiki-editor, it has taken me a while to grasp the complexities of the rules and systems. From what I have seen today I am unlikely to contribute as I now convinced that there is a systemic problem with WP itself being edited by those who are well resourced and co-ordinated enough to promote a non neutral, mainstream POV.

In this instance, there are what I consider to be heavy enough voices in five continents repeating the conflict of interests (Business Standard, The Australian, Times of India (publish his public renouncement of the claim), India Express, China Views, The Telegraph, Canada Free Press) and the fact the conflict is raised this time by Monckton and Fielding appears to be used as a diversionary tactic by these people.

If one takes the time to look a little closer it appears that they are editors with the resources to generate 1000's of (often well considered) edits per month that promote a POV which is clearly aligned with the so called 'normal' views punted by the mainstream media. A identifiable variety of tactics are used to revert and discredit views and if one tactic fails another is used until the required POV is expressed. I cite my edit today, where ChrisO misuses the BLP rule but is rapidly supported by another editor using a different tactic.

Other examples numerous and widespread. On this topic the battle to mention the term 'Climate gate' let alone call the article by its more popular title. Again the 'normal' POV is promoted by the misuse and apparent promotion of the term 'hacking' (over the more accurate AND neutral term 'cracking') and please note that 'hacking' is used even whilst there is *no evidence* of actual 'cracking' yet (which most significantly leaves the possibility of the email release being whistle-blowing rather than criminal).

I am most distressed by this this threat to WP neutrality on important current issues and pray that WP can find a way to cure what appears to be a systemic problem. I can only hope that the WP foundation takes note of the tens of thousands of editors who have already left in protest this year due to this problem and that this problem is widely publicised and that as a result WP:Foundation strive to find a rapid solution so that good editors can edit without having to do battle with those that *somehow* have the resources to promote their own agenda. 94.168.189.5 (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In dealing with these issues one has to recognize that there are organized campaigns for and against various people and Pachauri is in the spotlight. The article as it reads is neutral, merely setting out the details of his life and career without any part saying that he is an angel or a devil, which is probably a good place to leave it. joshua halpern

I'm seeing what the anon is talking about on Monckton's page where hours of another's good faith edits have been trashed under spurious reasons when both reverters have been online and editing since two days worth of piece-meal editing has occurred to improve the article and not once did they intervene or advise the editor until after they've reverted the whole. Same problem as here, people too ready to chuck out baby with bathwater if I want to be polite. If the MA DSC after names and his mother's name being a dame and that is unencyclopedic, you could just tidy it up, or tag the relevant "surprising" info, but no-one did, just a wholesale revert. It is no wonder the bloggers are having a field day.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've already explained, Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy requires all biographical material, whether positive, negative or neutral, to be reliably sourced. That is a non-negotiable requirement. If you don't like it, don't complain to me; take it to the BLP noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No I think not, you appear to be misquoting: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." "Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections". Per the usual all information must be verifiable from reliable sources, it need not be entered immediately, nor is it needed to, as absolutely everything being sourced.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living people are treated differently from other articles. As WP:BLP#Writing style says, "While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted (see #Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material)." "Eventualism" (adding unsourced information in the hope that it will be sourced later) is not permitted on biographical articles, for good reason. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And this further onfuscation has to do with the price of fish how? You want to stub the article? Fine by me. Remove unsourced or badly source contentious material, OK I'll give you that it might be contentious. Sourced - yes. Badly sourced - no. Unsourced - most decidely not.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

But the new addition to the article was reliably sourced chris. So what is it you are objecting to here? mark nutley (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the unsourced additions made to the Monckton article that Gerrard Winstanley mentioned above. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair Enough, looking at that i see you wrote 

As I've already explained, Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy requires all biographical material, whether positive, negative or neutral, to be reliably sourced. That is a non-negotiable requirement. If you don't like it, don't complain to me; take it to the BLP noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As the material i inserted into the article is reliably sourced then what is the issue with it`s inclusion? Even if it is negative on tone according to your own words as it is reliably sourced it can be included into the article --mark nutley (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Three sources have been provided, all of which are WP:RS. Condition met. --GoRight (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Second, the sources are valid and consistent, this is a relevant and significantly notable event for a public figure it must be included with brevity and balance to the context.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of response from the usual suspects here i believe my edit can be allowed in :)

--mark nutley (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

good effort. but lol. 89.16.175.187 (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the authorative source for the remark "Monckton is a far-out GW skeptic"? Name calling reminds me of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Name-calling Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers in the intent that the bad names will cause hearers to construct a negative opinion about a group or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish hearers to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of facts. Name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against the an idea or belief on its own merits.[7]24.87.71.192 (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Ok the page protection expires today and this is what i believe should be added

On December 15th 2009 in an open letter, Lord Christoper Monckton, and Senator Steve Fielding, called for his removal as head of the IPCC.

This was due to his conflict of interests in being the head of the IPCC and his involvement with carbon trading company`s,

He has strongly refuted the allegations in an interview with The Times of India

Does anyone have any objections this time? --mark nutley (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so I've taken it out again. Same as before: this is NN, and Monckton isn't interesting, you never got agreement to add this, only silence as we got bored William M. Connolley (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted, once again just because you think monckton is not interesting is not a reason to revert. You also continue to ignore that it was also signed by senator steve fielding. It is reliably sourced and pertinent to this article. Try to focus on the whole entry not just your personal opinon of monckton.

I would also point out that in this thread the majority of those commenting wanted this in, that is a consensus mark nutley (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Err no. First off, a majority is not a consensus (as you'd be the first to point out elsewhere). Secondly, said majority doesn't exist, discounting anons and the blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Err yes, get a dictionary consensus is a majority. Just because someone is currently blocked does not mean their views should be ignored. I am not counting anons btw. And i have pointed out elsewere that a majority is a consensus, i believe it was in the medival warm period article. I would also like you to address my point about senator steve fielding and to give a valid reason as to why this addition can`t be added. mark nutley (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Consent given. Obstructions can be set aside. The bored can abstain, as they seem only excited by disputes. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not a majority. Re MWP, I'll believe you when I see a diff and not before William M. Connolley (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened to assuming good faith? [[8]] There you go. Just looked through wp:consensusand nowere in there does it say that WP has rewritten the meaning of the word consensus, i would recommend you look up the actual meaning of a word if you wish to bandy it about :) --mark nutley (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand this discussion at all. It is an objective fact that Pachauri has been accussed of having conflicts of interest, that he has denied any wrongdoing, and that there has yet to be an investigation. The article should state that. It is significant, because Pachauri may well have to resign if the allegations would be true, while Monckton, Fielding and North could well lose a libel suit if the allegations would be false. The potential consequences are speculative at present, but the allegations and denial are not and should be included. Richard Tol (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets put it this way: If there is an investigation or if Pachauri launches a libel suit or if the press keeps pushing it (it is more than a short news-flash), then we will cover it. As it stands right now, this seems to have been a 7-day wonder in parts of the news. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is still in the news, i posted links to the new stories on tonys page. It is far beyond a seven day wonder now. --mark nutley (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The story rumbles on. More revelations have been announced for next Sunday, but even as things stand now Pachauri would need to sue to clear his name. Richard Tol (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is possible that the "story rumbles on", but so far it has made little impact. Outside of a few British and Indian newspapers (and some tabloids) it hasn't had much of a gathering. That may change, it may even change after Sunday - but so far it is either "beginning to break news" or rumor. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry kim but nope, a few british and indian papers is not quite correct [[9]] In the list you will see links to usa, china, australia and a bunch of others. This is worldwide not confined to GB and india like you suggest. --mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. It does not matter whether it is included today or next month. I would be very surprised if this would not blow up. Richard Tol (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Waiting a month seems like a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Word on the street is that there will be several articles this weekend. Richard Tol (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

By "word on the street" you mean "speculation by ill-informed right-wing bloggers", yes? You people really should pay less attention to rumours. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? Has it really come to that, ChrisO, that you choose to refer to those you disagree with as "you people"? Sad. Truly sad. ATren (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rtol is actually Richard Tol so it wouldn't be toooo surprising if someone has tipped him the wink. But why don't we wait and see? ps: his hair is complete weird [10] so he can't be right wing :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Word on the street" I think we can be pretty sure that more than one article will appear. We don't know whether these will recycle old material or bring substantive news. Kim's wait-and-see is therefore appropriate. There is a smouldering fire in the blogosphere, but no big story (yet?). Richard Tol (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] There will defiantly be another expose in the Telegraph this sunday coming, i suspect the other majors in the msm will pick it up this time, they are always a few weeks behind the blogs and for some reason the telegraph. It was the same with scamalot after all :) --mark nutley (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

revert to previous version

{{editsemiprotected}} First time doing this :) As this is a content issue i would request that this edit [[11]] is used until such a time as the dispute has been solved. Thank you. --mark nutley (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You want {{editprotected}}. But it's not going to happen anyway. -Atmoz (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Why are you so sure it will not happen? I assume the truth will prevail over your pov after all :) --mark nutley (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You want WP:TRUTH William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No william, i just want the truth in the article :)

Having looked over the options on reaching a consensus i believe that as the majority of reverts were done by those who believe this edit should stay six in total i believe [[12]]

As opposed by the four who believe it should go.

Therefore i can assume the consensus is that it should stay. May i have your arguments as to why it should not stay please. --mark nutley (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You may as well set your alarm clock. The article has been protected to their preferred version (how does this keep happening I ask myself) so they will simply stonewall you until the protection expires. Just wait until it drops and we can restore it then. --GoRight (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The claims of a BLP violation are a faux smokescreen. There is no BLP issue here. The topic has been well sourced. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Obfuscation at best, what the bloggers say at worst, reality point is probably somewhere in between.--Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I assumed as much goright, it is painfully obvious that these editors will refuse to debate the issue. However i believe it is important to try and reach a consensus so as to prevent the same thing happening again. If of course they continue with their blatant bias then i suppose it`ll have to be taken further :) Thank you mark nutley (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, so it looks like our BLP policy was enforced fairly easily here after a friendly admin locked the page on the WP:RIGHT version. Anyway, can I suggest, to those who, say, find Pachauri's hair to be too long, or maybe that the look in his eye is too wacky, that WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP are very good reasons why this "conflict of interest" stuff should not be here, whereas neither the hair, eyes, nor existence of said newspaper allegations are good reasons to include them. I have only just followed up all these juicy Pachauri allegations; I see RAP Jr and Hans von Storch have written about it all. But Pachauri has denied it all. So, I guess, we assume good faith, and it may not be true? It would become more historically interesting, to me anyway, if Pachauri gets forced to, say, resign, but this hasn't actually happened. Okay, so this is breaking news, and it's got into a single, minimally reliable source. Summary, WP:BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS clearly imply that this stuff doesn't belong in Wikipedia (yet, anyway...). Yes, I know I'm supposed to be offline. Let's just say I missed a flight, and let's add, yes, I do feel guilty about taking flights in the first place, and stupid too for both taking them and then missing them, and ending up in the wrong city, but since I have an evening to kill, I thought I'd add another voice to those who believe in Wikipedia policies applying evenly at all pages. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This "conflict of interest" stuff that is verifiable and reliably sourced from papers in Canada, UK, Australia, and China (sorry USoA you'll have to do better than blogs), but like I said to Kim, I'm happy to wait to see if the Mockingbirds decide the tune is worth a whistle.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure it's "verifiable", but it's also breaking news, and it's also contentious. So WP:NOT#NEWS says we don't include this because it's breaking news, and WP:BLP says we don't include it because it's contentious, it could still be false rumour, etc. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss the bit where I suggest writing it from the subject's viewpoint, taking the public response to the claims as the introduction to the information. Time will tell if his apparent conflict of interests as reported have is part of the "enduring notability of persons and events" to do with him. "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." I see no-one wanting it to be emphasised, only reported, are we treating this differently from other information as the guide you pointed me to says?Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that we should do pre-emptive editing... No, we shouldn't. We are neither here to defend nor attack, but to write an encyclopaedia, and that means that we are always (or at least should be) behind the news. We have no clue yet as to whether this is going to be an issue of notice in Pachauri's bio or not - and that is the issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm, "Time will tell" sounds like waiting for the jury to come out to me, it was not my intention to imply pre-emptive writing, that doesn't sit with being patient and waiting, like I said before. I thought I was inferring exactly that we wait to see if this becomes an issue or not. I don't see where we disagree there.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding then - Merry Christmas. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too, Kim.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

How can it be a false rumour? He said himself he has taken up all these posts. He has set up carbon trading outfits worldwide. I don`t see how it can be a rumour mark nutley (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, yes, well, he also said he hasn't actually taken any money from them. So without having taken money, he wouldn't have a conflict of interest. It seems that there is merely an appearance so far, and whether it's in good taste for an IPCC chairmen even to have the appearance of a COI that they seem to be discussing. In a few weeks, I guess, the significance of all this might be clearer. The trouble is, we report the facts here, even if they're facts, we also present an appearance of a conflict of interest, and given that it's breaking news, it wouldn't look neutral, or encyclopaedic, to the reader, but rather that we were insinuating that Dr. Pachauri is a bit of a crook. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hang on there. I don't have an opinion on stay or go at the moment but COI doesn't require that someone "take" money, only that a person benefits in another way from the decisions that he is making while wearing a different (impartial) hat. Politicians et al. often put their assests in blind trusts for exactly this reason, so that there can not even be the appearance of COI. BobKawanaka (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Serving in any fashion in a carbon exchange company is a clear conflict of interests so long as the IPCC is in a position to influence government policy on carbon trading. Money need not change hands in these sorts of deals. Options are granted through offshore lawyers trusts to purchase future shares (at fractions of a penny a share). If a favorable decision is granted (eg: cap and trade is approved in the US), the shares go up significantly in value (tens of dollars a share), and the option is exercised, yielding enormous profits. This places considerable motivation (temptation) before the person in question to ensure a favorable decision is reached.

The offshore trust makes the transaction untraceable and deniable, as the offshore lawyer remains the owner of record. The actual owner remains hidden through the workings of the trust. The money can then be repatriated to the true owner by mechanisms such as loans against the trust, the interest on which can be made tax deductible if it is invested in the host country to generate income, while the trust operates tax free offshore. In effect, the true owner of the trust earns a fortune in return for a favorable decision, and gets paid by the host government to borrow their own money, without ever having received a single cent in payment.24.87.71.192 (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliably sourced claims being removed

There appears to be no justification for removing the conflict of interest criticisms. They are reliably sourced and therefore not a BLP issue. Since this article is on probation, I am discussing here before adding it back in, but if there are no compelling arguments for removal I will add it back in the next few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATren (talk • contribs)

Why are you so important that you start you own section instead of joining the discussion above? And since when has simple reliability of sourcing been an iron-clad defence against BLP? What is your opinion, for example, of Talk:Anthony_Watts_(blogger)#Suggest a new section for this material_in_bio William M. Connolley (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC, there are plenty of examples of reliable sourcing being the sole qualification for inclusion of negative material in skeptic bios. See Ian Plimer, for example. I am applying the same standard here. I will check on the Watts article now. ATren (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Diffs? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See my comments below on the Ian Plimer article, specifically this entire section. Plimer just happened to be the first skeptic bio I looked at, I'm sure there are others because I've been involved in these debates for quite some time and I've seen the arguments for inclusion on those articles. ATren (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't understand. Are you suggesting there shouldn't be a section on Plimer CCS? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but several claims within that section (including its subsections) should be removed if the same standard is applied there as is suggested here. On a quick reading, the specific issues I found were the whole Monbiot debate section and the pundit calling Plimer a "denialist poster boy". There may be other examples in Plimer, and there are certainly examples in other skeptic bios. I was personally involved in the debates on Plimer, so I'm familiar with it. ATren (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked on the Watts article, and if it is reliably sourced, it probably should be included. I'll investigate further. But in any case, I think there is a significant difference between including an extortion attempt which relates to Watts' personal life vs the conflict of interest accusation here, which is a claim about Pachauri's public involvement in the IPCC. Typically, such material (i.e. calling Plimer a "denialist") is always included in skeptic articles, as long as it is reliably sourced. The Watts extortion case is a little different, since it is about a private matter unrelated to Watts' notability. So in my view, I think it would be reasonable to keep the Pachauri claim without the Watts claim, but not vice-versa. ATren (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this material still being removed? I'm shocked! I thought that was settled some time ago. It is reliably sourced and balanced since it includes Pachauri's denial. His denial is also a sign of notability of the topic and therefore the WP:WEIGHT it should be afforded for inclusion. --GoRight (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked [13] indeed. Your thoughts are wrong. Your arguments as to notability are incorrect William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

notability is not an issue as this was widely reported. I have rewritten the text to show it from pachauri`s perspective btw. mark nutley (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make unmarked reverts [14]. I've removed it; it suffers from exactly the same problems as the previous removed text William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What is an unmarked revert? Or did you not look at the diffs on both my edits? The only problem with this text is the one you have with it, you have yet to give a valid reason for it not to be included. Your current reasons i`m afraid do not count i quote,

• Monckton is a wacko.
• No-one cares what monckton thinks.

So last chance give a reason within the rules for it`s non inclusion mark nutley (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How about the most obvious one: There is no consensus for it, neither here, nor in the above thread. The general consensus was: "Wait and see if it becomes notable". As far as i can see, nothing has changed - and this has basically fallen off the news, perhaps that will change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry kim but only you and connolley seem to be against this, chriso was but he actually expanded upon the included text to improve it whic hwould indicate he no longer has an issue with it.

With just the two of you against it`s inclusion then the consensus is for it, not against.

The wait and see was never a consensus, it was suggested by one editor. --mark nutley (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark, recall that I helped you to clean up an addition you made to an article recently, even though I did not think it belonged. I also cleaned up an item that William M. Connolley had added, and you complained to me for doing that. It's not good to complain to editors for making good faith edits, which should stand on their merits alone. Nor is it sensible to interpret such edits as full acceptance of the earlier edits. We're all trying hard to work together and that means we're seeking compromises where that seems sensible. --TS 12:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]Sorry tony, i see no compromise coming from connolley, he refuse to give a valid reason for this inclusion, I am not complaining about good faith edits, i am complaining about wholesale reverts for no good reason. This text is well sourced, it is notable as it has been mentioned in a dozen reliable sources, I ask connolley again give one reason within the rules which means this can`t be in the article. mark nutley (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there is a question related to due weight here. This does turn up quite a lot as an issue in biographies of living persons (BLPs), and while there is a question about it we should err on the side of caution. The question of the "notability" guideline doesn't enter into this, it's matter of the Neutral point of view policy, especially as related to BLPs. --TS 12:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There have been a lot of arguments against it, just not in this thread (since it is already in the other thread). WP:NOTNEWS is one of these. The section on Monckton is completely off-base by WP:WEIGHT (has anyone even noticed or taken it seriously?). As i said before, and what i'll say again is: If this turns out to be more than a short news-burst, then there might be something in it. But except for the brief news-burst in Dec, there hasn't been any more.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, read my reply below: weight has never been a reason for removal of an item on any GW skeptic bios. I cited Plimer's article but there are several more cases. In those articles, any claim is included as long as it is reliably sourced. We need to apply the same standard here, or go back and scrub down the skeptic articles to remove all the dubiously-weighted claims there. ATren (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course things have been removed from sceptic bios because of both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT, stating otherwise is (imho) foolish. Your example of Plimer is rather irrelevant since Plimer is primarily notable for his (rather far out) scepticism (and just because. Pachauri's notability doesn't in any way or form hinge on this item. The failure you make each time is the following: Weight is determined by the prevalence of informations compared to the overall sum of information. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC) nb: with regards to the Plimer article, it is one that i have avoided since i found the tone there (from both sides) toxic - sorry --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, I've personally been involved in these debates, and neither weight nor notnews has been raised in most cases. And I don't agree with your argument that somehow Pachauri's critics have lesser weight than a left-wing pundit calling Plimer a "denialist poster boy" and Monbiot actually claiming he won his debate with Plimer. Both of those are included there. That, to me, is an inconsistent standard that needs to be rectified. And it's not just Plimer either. I've been involved in (or witnessed) probably a dozen debates on skeptic bios, and the sole inclusion criterion was reliable sourcing with no discussion of weight. ATren (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.x3!! reply to Kim, earlier) The claim that there is no consensus for inclusion is dubious. Three editors here are arguing for inclusion of some reference to the claim. So far the arguments against have been primarily WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

I've spent much time on the GW skeptic bios over the last year, and on any of those pages, this would be a slam dunk for inclusion. As I've pointed out above, the Ian Plimer article (specifically, |this section) has plenty of criticisms where the only criterion for inclusion was that they were reliably sourced. These criticisms include a left-wing pundit calling him a "denialist poster boy" and an entire section about Plimer's debate with George Monbiot, sourced entirely to Monbiot himself. In fact, the current version actually has a claim that Plimer was "soundly thrashed" by Monbiot in the debate -- sourced to Monbiot himself!

Now, to be clear, I've generally supported inclusion of such material in skeptic bios because they were reliably sourced. And Plimer is just one example, I can find more. I am simply applying the same standard here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATren (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 January 2010

I think the current version of the Plimer article has a statement (as amended by me) that Monbiot claimed, based on emails he had received that Plimer had been soundly thrashed. I'd rather eliminate all reference to that but haven't yet put an argument up for it (I have in the past argued for a drastic reduction of references to Monbiot from that biography).

For pretty much the same reason (due weight) I'm dubious about inclusion of this section in this article. To say that three people arguing for is anything resembling consensus is false, and to say "don't like it" characterizes the arguments against when you have seen arguments from fundamental Wikipedia policy, is flatly false. --TS 13:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, Plimer is one example. I can easily find half a dozen more in skeptic bios. Weight has never been a criterion for removal on those articles. So if we are going to remove such claims from AGW supporters, we need to scrub the skeptics as well. I personally prefer inclusion in all cases as long as the material is sourced properly (let the reader decide), but if it must be exclusion, it should be consistent. ATren (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly as regards a single statement about Monbiot's opinion, I agree that it was wrong. That isn't, I hope you realise, an argument relevant to this article, except that it might go some way to explain for your benefit why I am presently opposed to inclusion if this section in this article. The Plimer mess isn't an argument for mucking up this article. Both are biographies of living persons and must be written with considerable sensitivity. --TS 13:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok lets take it one step at a time, with regards to wp:blp (a direct quote from chriso above)Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy requires all biographical material, whether positive, negative or neutral, to be reliably sourced. That is a non-negotiable requirement. If you don't like it, don't complain to me; take it to the BLP noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So thats wp:blp out of the way. Now tonys concern about wp:weight Given pachauri himself made two statements about this in the guardian and the times of india plus another statement from teri gives in weight. I think that covers everything, rebuttal`s please. --mark nutley (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(e.c. reply to Tony) It's not just Monbiot on Plimer. We also have a left-wing pundit calling him a "denialist poster boy" and other criticisms from his opponents. And the Plimer article is relevant, because it is important to apply a consistent standard, particularly when dealing with two sides of the same debate. Personally, I've sided with the "pro-inclusion" editors on those articles because the claims were reliably sourced, but now some of those same editors are arguing for exclusion here based on weight. So if weight is used as a justification for exclusion here (and I don't necessarily agree that it should be), I think those skeptic bios need to be re-evaluated. ATren (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this here instead of on Talk:Ian Plimer, and if things really are that bad - then take it to WP:BLP/N. Sorry - but this is totally and utterly off-topic here. I'm not surprised that the Plimer article is a mess though - which (as said above) is why i've avoided it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, I raised Plimer as an example. There are others, I'll try to find other examples tonight. And yes, I believe that consistency across articles on the same topic is important, and relevant to this discussion where I believe a different standard of inclusion is being applied. ATren (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ATren's view of the need for cross article consistency in the application of policy. We shouldn't be arguing lax inclusion standards in some articles and strict ones in others. --GoRight (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I see my earlier comments are being cited here. The contentious material is unquestionably reliably sourced - though Monckton's open letter should not be used as a source, being both a primary and a self-published source - and Pachauri himself has responded to the claims in The Guardian only 3 days ago. If it is to be included then Pachauri's rebuttal must be included. The question is basically one of how much weight one assigns it. I'm dubious of the justifications for including this material; I agree that it seems like undue weight on the views of a fringe commentator, which have attracted only limited coverage. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If the Monckton letter is not used as a reference (I don't think anything really relied on it, per se), would you accept it as an external link for those readers who might also wish to review it as well? --GoRight (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you guys keep ignoring the fact that senator steve fielding also signed that letter? Pachauri`s rebuttal is included in the last revision of the text. The wp:weight argument has already been answered as the allegations received quite a bit of coverage as shown by Gerrard Winstanley above Business Standard, India Express, China View, The Australian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all because while Fielding (according to the news) was distributing the letter with Monckton, he is (apparently) not a signatory (his name isn't on it?). Second of all: I never heard of him. What makes him notable in this context? (some obscure Australian politician?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not say the leader of the opposition in Australia is an obscure politician kim, especially as he will more than likely be the next pm there. mark nutley (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Erh? Why isn't this reflected in the wiki-article on him? Family First Party is the opposition (i thought it was a minor party)? And the next PM? Thats interesting - but do you have any backings for it? (ie. are you certain you aren't inflating his importance?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fielding's notable because the WP:RS took note of him when reporting on the issue. They decide who's notable from a content POV, not us. --GoRight (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting mentioned in a WP:RS does not automagically make things notable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It does on skeptic bios, therefore it does here. So let's figure out a wording that works for all. I suggest the following, which simply states the allegation and Pachauri's denial:

"On December 15th 2009 in an open letter, Lord Christoper Monckton and Senator Steve Fielding of Australia called for his removal as head of the IPCC. This was due to allegations of a conflict of interest in being the head of the IPCC and his involvement with carbon trading companies. Pachauri has strongly denied the allegations."

ATren (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]@ Kim, one can hope :) I think atren`s proposal is a fair compromise, along with the links to the letter and the pieces about the allegations plus of course both of pachauri`s statments and perhaps the one from TERI. --mark nutley (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

@Kim regarding Fieldings notability, if you look at Fieldings Home Pageyou can see he has been interviewed by a fair few msm news channels like sky sbs and abc, so he is not entirely as obscure as kim suggests. mark nutley (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fielding's notability is not our concern; the fact that this appeared in high quality reliable sources is sufficient. ATren (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not surprising you think ATren's suggestion is an acceptable compromise, since it isn't (a compromise, that is). Nor is it acceptable. Its just your text, a bit shorter. It completely fails to address the arguments against William M. Connolley (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Then suggest your own compromise if you don't like mine. I've already outlined my arguments for inclusion of this material. and others agree. ATren (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with notability or sourcing. It's a question of due weight. --TS 13:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

@WMC, dude you have yet to actually give a reason within the rules which should stop it`s entry, so far we have had "no-one cares what monckton thinks" and "monckton is a wacko" Sorry but those are not valid reasons for an argument against. I also would like you to actually offer an alternative which is also a part of the rules here, not just keep saying no, if you refuse to compromise then your objections will have no weight as it is obvious you are just being intransigent.

@Tony, due weight has already been addressed this received widespread coverage in a number of papers and we have pachauri`s two rebuttles plus one from TERI, this gives it plenty of weight. mark nutley (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'v given reasons within the rules - you just don't understand the rules - you still think WP:CONSENSUS is a majority, unless you're now admitting that error William M. Connolley (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually WMC i rather think that it is WP:NOCONSENSUS I quote "It is important to note that a few vocal dissenters do not create "no consensus". So i do believe it is in fact a majority vote which will decide this issue --mark nutley (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said - you don't understand the rules. You won't believe me, of course - find someone experienced that you trust, perhaps GR, and ask them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, WMC, I disagree with your assessment. So there we are, you say one thing, I disagree, and we're at a stalemate. The difference is, I am trying to work on compromise, and you continue to make dubious claims of consensus. Why don't you drop the "my way or the highway" attitude and work with us on a compromise? ATren (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, because you think "compromise" means dance the wording around William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If he's rebutted the allegations, obviously we wouldn't want to publish them. --TS 14:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He's denied them. We've included his denial. That's more than sufficient. I've still seen no good reason to keep this out, and I feel strongly that it should appear in some form. WMC, we've provided alternate wordings, we've added his denial, an you refuse to consider anything except outright exclusion. That is unacceptable because at least three editors here have presented compelling arguments for inclusion in some form. Now, why don't we come together on this and compromise on an acceptable wording? ATren (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If he's denied them then we'd be daft to treat those making the allegations as reliable sources. --TS 15:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense, since when has the telegraph not been a reliable source? Just becasue he has denied it does not actually change the facts does it? The fact he has gone out of his way to deny it actually gives it more weight. --mark nutley (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Our standards of sourcing for allegations against living people are higher than those of the Daily Telegraph. The Telegraph merely looks at what it can say without being sued. Since one of the writers on that piece is the columnist Christopher Booker, it's a predictable hatchet job. You really only have to look at it to see that it isn't a work of serious reporting, but an opinion piece dressed up with sundry quasi-factual allegations. Those allegations have been rebutted and we're not going to report this unless serious and answerable charges are made. That's because we're an encyclopedia and the Telegraph is a newspaper. --TS 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine, then we need to apply this same standard to skeptics' BLPs. You made a small edit yesterday to remove criticism from Plimer's article (far less than needed to be removed by the standards of this page), and quickly gave up when Ratel reverted you. In reality, almost all of Plimer's criticism is unacceptable by this higher standard. Why are you not taking the same stand over there, and on the dozen other skeptic BLP's where material much less "encyclopedic" than what's being discussed here is routinely included as long as the sourcing is good? The double standard on these articles needs to be rectified. ATren (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindented somewhat)

Look, you've had a good go at finding something comparable to this calumny in the biographies of skeptics, and so far the best you've come up with is that someone heard in email that Plimer was "soundly thrashed" in a TV appearance (which I agree shouldn't be in the article on that basis) and some stuff like someone's opinion that Plimer is a "denialist poster boy" (which is, of course, a matter of opinion, and may or not be appropriate in context). These are serious, and apparently baseless allegations against Pachauri, and so far appear to be sourced to a disinformation campaign by a few bloggers and the like. Unless something serious turns up we will not be rebroadcasting these false allegations, even to note that they have been refuted. This is quite close to "Richard Gere and the hamster" territory at the moment, and we shouldn't be stooping to that level of scandal-mongering. We wait and see what develops. . --TS 17:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, there's much more. Even on Plimer's page there is a bunch that would have to go, and I haven't even looked beyond. In any case, relating to this claim here, you are applying a judgement to this material that is unwarranted. So even though it appears in reliable sources, you consider it unreliable, so you want to suppress it. You know that's not how it works. ATren (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry tony but thats total rubbish, The Telegraphpiece is not on a blog, nor on a subsection of the paper like a reporters blog, it is in the news section as an investigative piece of journalism. How you can say they are "baseless allegations" and part of "a disinformation campaign" is ridicules. Everything written in that piece is true as you can look on pachauris own web bio and the jobs listed in the telegraph are right there. You also assume they are false allegations, since when was that for you to decide? Look at the facts. Your reasons stated above for non inclusion are false and this is hardly scandal-mongering as you imply. This is getting beyond parody now, first it`s no cos of wp:blp then it`s wp:undue then wp:weight and now now we have "look this is all a lie and a conspiracy", i am fairly certain this is not a valid reason for not including this text. --mark nutley (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ATren, you've repeatedly made these claims about the Plimer article. There's a point at which you have to admit that you're clinging to a desperate comparison for which you have failed to provide any credible comparator.

Mark, read the Telegraph article. Read it and tell me that's a reliable source, without smirking. It's crud, and nasty crud. We don't put crud into our articles just because they've appeared in a newspaper. --TS 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm clinging to it desperately, as if I and my entire argument are about to fall from a cliff! :-)

I stand by everything I've said, which boils down to this: a different inclusion standard is being applied here than has been applied to GW skeptic articles. I've provided evidence of such. You don't agree, but I think others will. Time will tell. ATren (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, time will tell. There is no rush to publish what may prove to be a nine-day wonder. --TS 22:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Meaningless Break

We all know that BLP allows reliably source criticism from independent sources. The criticism here meets that standard whereas the criticism on Plimer's page clearly does NOT. Yet the criticism on Plimer's page is being allowed to stand whereas the criticism here is being blocked for some as of yet unspecified reasons. Appealing to WP:CONSENSUS is not a valid reason when the only reason that I can see that some people are objecting is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This latter point is NOT a valid reason. So please put up some valid policy based reasons for exclusion otherwise this should be a no brainer for inclusion based on the policy analysis done so far. --GoRight (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the COI issue: Actually the reason that people are objecting is because of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT primarily. The previous discussions conclusion was to wait and see if this was more than a short news-burst, and it doesn't seem to have been more than that. (short burst in December, died completely down since then). We are not a news-agregator. The COI issue also has BLP issues, since the allegations really boil down to a single source (M => telegraph), the response from Pachauri may have made that moot - but it is still a question of seeing if anything at all will stick (ie. be weighty enough to mention in a biography). Pachauri gets alot of mention in the media, but there is almost no trace of this issue left in such coverage.

With regards to Monckton: This is a simple case of WP:WEIGHT, Moncktons "open-letter" simply hasn't received any serious attention.

Finally the whole Plimer issue is a red herring, the two people are not even remotely comparable. Plimer is a "single item" news character, while Pachauri is an international figure. That other stuff exists is not an excuse to expand it elsewhere. If there is a problem on Ian Plimer (wouldn't surprise me) then fight it out there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ok kim, wp:weight has already been addressed. So i have looked at wp:notnews here is what it says, "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" Now this is not being "emphasized" it is just an addition to his bio and should not be "treated differently from other information" It also says to look at wp:notability so i did and it says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." so as this text is actually reliably sourced well enough to create a stand alone artilce there is certainly no problem with it being in here. --mark nutley (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is of course the little problem that it hasn't received "significant coverage". If you look at the amount of media coverage that Pachauri is getting, then this is a drop in the Ocean. Sorry. (there are within the last month at least 4000 news media coverages of Pachauri, less than 100 of these mention the COI issue, and all of these are from December [the past week alone there was ~ 400 articles with Pachauri's name in the headline]). If there is more to this than just a small news-burst, then we may consider including it, but so far there hasn't been any indications of such - in fact i find it rather revealing that it has died down (almost?) completely. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course all of the headlines are from december, that`s when the article was written in the telegraph. Google Results 1 - 10 of about 13,000 for pachauri conflict of interest. Seems like a lot of interest to me. Were do you get the 4000 news media coverages of him btw? --mark nutley (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, KDP has raised two potential policy issues with the inclusion of this material. First there is the WP:BLP argument about including negative material. This is admittedly a serious consideration, however as I pointed out above WP:BLP clearly allows the inclusion of negative material which is reliably sourced to independent sources. The telegraph article is clearly a secondary source written by independent authors. As such it qualifies under WP:BLP for inclusion even without Pachauri's denial, so including it alongside Pachauri's denial should remove all doubt based on WP:BLP criteria.

On the issue of WP:WEIGHT, there is merit to KDP's argument IMO but simply counting news articles is only one aspect of weight. In this case the COI charges also derive weight both from the status of the individual in question (and KDP has argued strenuously that Pachauri is a very prominent and public figure based on the volume of news coverage that he receives if nothing else) as well as the raw seriousness of the charge (given that it is being taken seriously by at least some secondary WP:RS). In other words, big charges against big fish have lots of weight in their own right. As JL indicates below, it would be irresponsible not to include mention of them on this basis alone. So I would argue that the lack of numerical weight pointed out by KDP is more than overcome by the weight of the issue itself. --GoRight (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but big charges only become notable when they are widely reported. And these simply haven't been.... I'm not arguing for a "news count" but noting that normally when Pachauri does or says something news-worthy then there are several hundred news sources that will pick it up (within a week). In this case the "charges" haven't even reached nominal mention (<100 mentions over a month). But as i said already: This may change - and if it changes - we will take note and include it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not true. For example, skeptic BLPs frequently contain guilt-implying associations to Exxon that are far less reported than this one. The current sourcing is more than sufficient here. Example: Stephen Milloy ties Milloy to Exxon, and the primary source is the non-independent "Union of Concerned Scientists". ATren (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, speaking of Milloy, here is an edit from you, Kim, in which you give the opinion that a primary source (an environmental journal article) can be used to support a claim of COI against Milloy. How is it that a primary source is OK on Milloy COI charges, but multiple independent media sources falls short here? ATren (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Another example: David Legates also has an allegation of ties to Exxon -- sourced to the Delaware News Journal. In that example, you also chimed in with two Guardian opinion sources from the same journalist, neither of which mentions Legates directly. ATren (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• In fact, Kim, before you inserted the irrelevant Guardian sources, you actually added a reference to ExxonSecrets, which is about as partisan a primary source as they come. ATren (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Another example: Myron Ebell, ties to Exxon sourced to Union of Concerned Scientists. ATren (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• And another for Milloy: "Steven Milloy, who runs the Web site Junkscience.com, and has close financial and organizational ties to ExxonMobil" - sourced to Mother Jones ATren (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Shall I go on? ATren (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Address the individual case, on its specific merit and not the editor please - i'm saying this again: Every case where WP:WEIGHT is considered is unique - no two persons have the same media-coverage, or the same balance between pro and contra views. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Address the individual case, on its specific merit and not the editor please" - And I would ask you to do likewise. ATren IS arguing the specific merits of this case based on how the policy in question has been applied in other cases. The application of policy is intended to be uniform across articles, and pointing out that it has not been uniformly applied, as ATren as done here, is not a comment on the editors but rather a comment on the application of policy to THIS article. --GoRight (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on ATren's talk-page, and please take a look every comment ATren makes is directed towards me, not towards a general view. Discussing each individual case is not something that belongs here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, his comments were directed at how the policies are being applied to THIS article relative to how they have already been applied in other comparable articles. I don't know how he selected his specific examples, nor do I care, the point he is making is related to the established community norms for the application of the policies we are discussing for this article. --GoRight (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, not all of those examples involved you, and indeed, I wasn't looking for your specific involvement. I just happened upon them in my research (my search term was, obviously, Exxon), and I only raised your involvement because some of the edits directly came from you, and they appear to contradict your position here. You are free to explain your rationale in each case. If you would like it to be an RFC, that's fine, I can do that, but to be clear, I am NOT accusing you of anything other than applying a different standard here, which does not imply bad faith whatsoever. Indeed, I'm sure there are cases where I've been inconsistent, especially in topics about which I am passionate, and if someone pointed them out to me I would not be offended. ATren (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Last comment on this: Individual issues have individual balances of coverage. Take things up on the appropriate forums if you have general issues. This is not the place. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What forum would you prefer? RFC? It is not unreasonable to ask you specifics of why a political magazine is acceptable sourcing and weight for a skeptic COI charge, while independent newspaper coverages is NOT acceptable for a proponent COI charge. You keep saying every case must be treated individually, but you refuse to state your case on an individual basis. If you have a clearly defined rationale for why these cases are different, then why not present it? ATren (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot the WP:NOTNEWS. The argument against this is essentially the same as the argument that weight accounts for more than a simple numerical percentage calculation. WP:NOTNEWS is clearly intended to exclude random mundane trivia of the day and these COI charges are most decidedly not trivial as KDP himself has been arguing in the case of WP:BLP. --GoRight (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually i do believe that this is trivial (media wise), and about as notable as other random gossip material, based upon the reception in the media. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The COI allegations have appeared in multiple reliable sources -- I'll come up with linkies later -- and are highly relevant to Pachauri's role in public life. To me, it would be irresponsible not to mention them in the article, along with Pachauri's denial. ATren's wording above seemed to be fairly balanced to me. J. Langton (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what comes of this. There is no deadline, and this is the biography of a living person. --TS 22:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, even if prot comes down we should not add anything until agreement is reached here. ATren (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; just weighing in in favor of inclusion. I'm pretty inclined to leave the main page editing here to more established editors. J. Langton (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Links to news articles about COI and the open letter

• Environmental LeaderMentions COI and moncktons & fieldings letter.
• World NewsTalks of COI
• Economic TimesMentions COI
• Decan HeraldMentions COI
• USA TodayMentions COI
• The AustralianMentions COI
• NC TimesThis is actually a seperate article from the telegraph which also covers COI (Does two separate pieces give more weight?)
• Indian Timesmentions both COI and Rebuttal
• The TelegraphA Seperate COI piece to the other one.
• Business StandardMentions COI
• cop15 HomepageMentions coi and letter from monckton and fielding
• Scribd.comOpen letter from monckton and fielding
• India Today
• Telegraph
• More Telegraph
• Yet more Telegraph
• CNBC India
• Hindustan Times
• The American
• China View
• India TimesThis one is a tv news channel.

More to come. --mark nutley (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd list all the recent coverage of Pachauri that doesn't give the allegations space, but the list would be very long. By the way is there any particular reason why you're listing above only articles from December? Is there significant recent coverage? I also note that some of your references (for instance, the cop15.dk reference to blog comments) are very very poor in quality. --TS 08:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I`m just listing a few to show how widespread the story is to prove weight, is that not a good idea? mark nutley (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a look for myself with "pachauri conflict of interest" in Google News in the past week, and found only this and this. The first is from a website called "New American", which is apparently an organ of the Birchers. The second is a comment on a blog in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It looks like I could have been right about a nine-day wonder, only the nine days ended two weeks ago. --TS 08:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The way it looks now is that some people tried to get up a conflict of interest case in an attempt to derail the Copenhagen conference, some newspapers carried it, Pachauri issued a forthright denial and the story died. There seems to have been little or no significant coverage of the allegations so far this month. This is, as I suggested earlier, looking like one of those "Richard Gere and the hamster" stories. Things could always change but I think for now we should not put anything into the article about these discredited allegations. --TS 08:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

They have not been discredited tony, just refuted, I just googled "pachauri" btw, the most recent hit gives a date of 29 Dec 2009, so were are you and kim getting these numbers from of recent stories which do not mention the coi? --mark nutley (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I just looked in google news, only one pachauri news item and the second is about the coi story mark nutley (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You should probably check again. I just looked for stories today alone and I got nearly a dozen. And remember I asked you for recent stories on the conflict of interest allegations. In the past week I find only the two I listed, one of them a blog comment and the other an article by the Birchers. Moreover you're skating on thin ice when you deny that the stories have been discredited. A forthright denial by the accused should be enough. --TS 08:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mate but no, just because someone says "I did`nt do it" does not discredit a story, bill clinton tried that, and most recently mr underpants bomber has pleaded not guilty in court, does that discredit the allegations? Of course not. mark nutley (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark, don't spend too much time defending irrelevant arguments like these; it will just get you frustrated and angry. The sources are there, they are reliable, leave it at that. The justification for removal has gone from BLP to WEIGHT to NOTNEWS; it's clear they will never accept inclusion here. It's definitely going to RFC now, so I suggest that we keep the talk page free of needless argumentation. The sources you provided, coupled by my analysis of sourcing on similar BLPs (above) should be sufficient to launch a content RFC. ATren (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok atren, however i do not know how to launch an rfc, are you willing to do it? If you do i`ll stalk you for a bit to see how it works :) --mark nutley (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't done it much myself. The instructions for filing are at WP:RFC, but let's not jump the gun. We should collect evidence and organize it first before filing. Above I collected a bunch of diffs I from other BLPs, which I believe sets the bar for inclusion of such COI material (unfortunately I gave the impression that the analysis was specific to KDP, which it was not, and that confused the issue a bit). Then there are the sources - a quick news search revealed a bunch that should be more than adequate. The important thing is to keep it short and sweet, don't clutter it up with a lot of argumentation or it will obfuscate the main issue, namely that the sourcing is solid and the weight of the allegations is more than adequate, especially given the much lesser notability of similar claims on skeptic articles. ATren (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty there isn't a lot of material for a RFC. This was a nine-day wonder and unless the allegations surface again--and with a lot more prominence and widespread coverage--we won't be rebroadcasting them even to note Pachauri's refutation. Dirty tricks and mud-throwing campaigns happen, they're not all worthy of a place in a biography. The clearly calculated intent to cause harm and the absence of serious concern (so far) weigh heavily against inclusion. This could all change next week, next month or next year, but for now the allegations have sunk without trace. --TS 12:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I still fully support Kim D. Petersen et al. that this material should be excluded per WP:BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS. Whilst it is certainly true that, say, Ian Plimer's biography is an utter disgrace, it is the entire Wikipedia community that is complicit there, and has nothing at all to do with Dr. Pachauri. Pachauri didn't defame Plimer's reputation in Wikipedia, so let us not fight the wrong fight. Those arguing for inclusion of this material here are achieving nothing other than to reduce the chances of ever helping the living people who really need our help from the mob. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Gotta disagree there alex, wp:blp says such content can be allowed as posted above by chriso. WP:Not#news is also not applicable as this got widespread coverage at the time and today was also in two newspapers again along with some more investigative stuff which produced further COI stuff. But like tony says, wait and see we are going to do an RFC to see what the community thinks but with these new stories plus another expose due out in next weeks telegraph i do not see how we ca njust ignore this and not include it. I`m not going to post here again until the RFC is under way as it is kind of a waste of time mark nutley (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it was in the news today, so let's have a look at, say, Anthony Watts' take on it (here):

Now that this story has legs, we’ll see more investigative journalism coming and those “doubts over his links” will get filled in, one way or another."

Yep, "one way or the other"... So... in other words, we haven't, actually, got a clue what this all means... But wouldn't it be cool if Rajendra Pachauri was brought down!! The IPCC brought top down!! Yeah, right. Anyway, what are we, as historians writing a biography, supposed to do here? Should we have a block stating, "This paragraph has been left intentionally blank pending investigative journalism that hasn't happened yet." WP:NOT#NEWS, although it could do with its wording being seriously tightened, suggests that we should avoid covering breaking news. The reason, I'd say, is that nothing that is breaking news, by the very definition of the terms, i.e. breaking news is history in the making, can be encyclopaedic. Encyclopaedias just don't work like that. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A simple statement indicating the claim and his denial is all that is needed. I am generally cautious on BLP issues, but this seems to be well beyond the threshold for inclusion. I raised the skeptic BLP issue because far less notable accusations have been reported there, and I believe standards should be consistent. Note, that means I would be willing to accept non-inclusion here, as long as those other BLPs get cleaned up as well; and in that eventuality, I would hope that those who are arguing to keep this claim out would also support me applying this same strict on other GW BLPs, even for those LPs on the other side of the GW debate. ATren (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, how to respond? A simple statement indicating the claim followed by his denial amounts to trial by Wikipedia, with guilty as charged suspicion aroused in the mind of the average, not so smart reader.

I suppose, to illustrate the problem with inclusion, I may refer to the MIT Climategate Debate where a questioner gets up around 1 hr 15 mins, waves his arms around in a great show of emotion, and more or less accuses Richard Lindzen of being a liar, after Lindzen had denied belief in the ExxonMobil "Denial Machine". It's fascinating to watch, and it is left ironically to Lindzen's alarmist colleague to admit that Lindzen himself is not part of the "machine". ("Dick Lindzen is his own machine", he says, jokingly.)

Once again, the poor questioner probably read this on Lindzen's Wikipedia BLP.

So, anyhow, I agree, obviously, that we have an inconsistency, but that's not my inconsistency, and I am going to stand by the policy: this fails WP:WEIGHT as Tony Sidaway said, and therefore fails WP:BLP. The Pachauri allegations should stay way out of this, just as those nebulous associations with Garth Paltridge and the Lavoisier Group obviously failed WP:WEIGHT, and just as the myth that Lindzen is funded by Exxon obviously had no WP:WEIGHT, and just as the leftist journalist Philip Adams' "denialist poster boy" slur against Ian Plimer has no WP:WEIGHT. But I do agree; we can't have it both ways. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a big problem citing stories in which Christopher Monckton is involved. He's an obvious loony who asserts that Obama and the IPPC are plotting to introduce a communist world government. If his allegations are to be included, so does rebuttal pointing out that he is a loony. And, if he is in, why not the Larouchites and others who have been running conspiracy theories much longer, and for whom we can find more references.JQ (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not an argument. Mark Chapman was a loony. John Lennon is still dead. Richard Tol (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's a fair point. We don't give fringe voices equal time, especially in biographies of living persons, per WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." -- ChrisO (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that inclusion of Mark Chapman before anything substantial had happened would have broken several Wikipedia policies. In this particular case, Monckton would be added when someone actually takes him seriously enough to do something about his allegations/requests - we aren't in possession of a crystalball. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Monckton is a loony? Is senator fielding also a loony? Should he be discounted as a sorce as well? And the treaty which was to be signed in copenhagen did have text which mentioned a world government, it was removed only after various nations complained. Also wp:fringe clearly states a fringe group can be used if their notability is sufficient, as the letter got widespread coverage then notability, is there is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 08:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Is senator fielding also a loony?" I assume you're not an Australian, Mark, or you would be aware both of the answer to this question and of the way in which a fringe candidate with almost zero political support can become a senator.JQ (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

John: Your opinion on other people is of no interest to the article under discussion. Your attitude does cast doubt on your suitability as contributor to Wikipedia. We're supposed to deal with facts. Facts should not be coloured by your like or dislike of particular people. Richard Tol (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

JQ's opinion on Lord Monckton is irrelevant, as is his mental state. The allegations, by the way, were made by a number of people.

The only argument that counts is whether or not a sufficient number of sources have picked up the allegations. Richard Tol (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If that is all that matters look at the list at the start of this section, i would say more than enough sources have picked it up mark nutley (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not wikipedia's place to pass judgment on whether Monckton is a loony. It is wikipedia's job to include reliably-sourced information relevant to the topics of its articles. Both the allegations and Pachauri's denial have appeared in multiple reliable sources, and reporting on them is therefore not giving undue weight to fringe voices. Regarding WP:WEIGHT I agree with those who have been advocating a consistent standard -- if Richard Lindzen's opinions about smoking, for example are sufficiently relevant to include in that article, then there can be absolutely no question that potential conflict of interest directly related to Pachauri's official duties passes muster. Why is this even controversial? J. Langton (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"then there can be absolutely no question..." - well i beg to differ. The situations are rather different - just to mention one: The amount of time over which sources have commented on the issue. If you have problems with the Lindzen article - then take it up there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

J. Langton, it is controversial because a few very persistent editors have made it controversial. We are beginning the process of preparing formal action against the obvious inconsistencies across articles in this topic area, and against the editors who tendentiously enforce that inconsistency; watch my talk page if you are interested. ATren (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

@ATren: Will do, thanks for the heads up.

@KDP: I do think it would be worthwhile to have some centralized discussion of what are the appropriate standards for inclusion in climate-change-related BLP articles. It doesn't have to be here, necessarily, but don't you think that having the discussion fragmented between several different articles would cause unnecessary confusion and inefficiency? J. Langton (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

From what i've seen so far, people are trying to make NPOV mean "equal time". So that a mainstream subject has the same amount of critique/praise as a minority or fringe subject - and from my reading of Wikipedia policy that is a non-starter from the get-go.

Weight (one of the major aspects of NPOV) is dependent on prevalence and reliability of sources, which is almost 100% different from topic to topic and person to person - it does in no way depend on what "side" it is on.

When people are trying to mix up topics or persons, in this way ("its unfair for X since Y is treated differently") then they have misunderstood one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia, and they have stopped looking at/estimating the situation as merited by reliable sources - and instead turned it into a partisan game of consequence and retribution. ("you do this, i do that"). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is worth our while having a general discussion about the neutrality of Wikipedia articles on climate change, because the standard is lamentable. In this particular case, however, the best solution is to wait until Monday when the list of "reliable sources" will be too long to ignore. Richard Tol (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) @KDP: "From what i've seen so far, people are trying to make NPOV mean 'equal time'."

This may be an issue in, for example, the Global Warming page, but I don't think that's relevant to the discussion here, which seems to me to be more about applying a consistent standard for what type of information is worth including in CC-related BLPs. I would hope that this type of consistency is desirable regardless of one's stance on the merits of AGW theory. You might be right that this page isn't the place to have that discussion. If so, is there another forum which would be more appropriate? Or do you believe that internal consistency should not be a concern? J. Langton (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

replied at Langton's talk --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, we have yet more stories on pachauri`s COI in todays papers, given it is no longer a 7 or 9 day wonder as some had assumed i believe we can now add the new text without further argument? See the list above for the new links --mark nutley (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I see one story about TERI - not Pachari - in yesterday's Telegraph. Is that all there is? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The story is dead, at least for the moment. Delingpole has an opinion piece about it, and the Telegraph has another feeble attempt to keep stirring the pot via the article on TERI, but beyond that there is none of the media footprint that would be caused by credible accusations of conflict of interest at this level. --TS 13:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, see links above? but to save you the trouble

• Telegraph
• More Telegraph
• Yet more Telegraph

Two new COI stories plus pachauri`s letter to the paper. That`s four new stories with Delingpole`s piece which i had not seen. How you can say it`s dead is beyond me. There are new links added above from china and the states showing it is a worldwide story, you can`t say it is not relevant nor wp:not#news any more, it is covered massively and should be in. --mark nutley (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also been reliably informed that the Indian Mail is doing another story tomorrow on this. Come on guys really now, how can you seriously say this is not allowable within the rules? --mark nutley (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC

The issue here is whether to allow reports of Pachauri`s conflict of interests into the current article. This is the disputed text which was in for Ten days before it was removed. The actual issue of having any mention in at all however has now dragged on since 21 December 2009 .

"On December 15th 2009 in an open letter, Lord Christoper Monckton and Senator Steve Fielding of Australia called for his removal as head of the IPCC. This was due to allegations of a conflict of interest in being the head of the IPCC and his involvement with carbon trading companies. Pachauri has strongly denied the allegations. Writing in The Guardian, he stated: "My institute, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), has no links with the Tata Group, other than having been established through seed funding from that group as a non-profit registered society in 1974, much like several other non-profit institutions of excellence set up by the Tatas for the larger public good. As for pecuniary benefits from advice that I may be rendering to profit making organisations, these payments are all made directly to my institute, without a single penny being received by me." He characterised the attacks on him as being the work of climate deniers who were seeking to "do everything possible to maintain the status quo.""

Below are the links to reliable sources which show how widespread this story is. Most recent story is dated 17/01/10 which means this story has now rumbled on for nearly two months. --mark nutley (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC) More links are being added and the 17/01/10 date is no longer the last date for a story about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 13:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Environmental LeaderMentions COI and moncktons & fieldings letter.
• World NewsTalks of COI
• Economic TimesMentions COI
• Decan HeraldMentions COI
• USA TodayMentions COI
• The AustralianMentions COI
• NC TimesOpinion Piece in the North County Times and The Californian reporters mark nutley (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Indian Timesmentions both COI and Rebuttal
• The TelegraphA Seperate COI piece to the other one.
• Business StandardMentions COI
• cop15 HomepageMentions coi and letter from monckton and fielding
• Scribd.comOpen letter from monckton and fielding
• India Today
• Telegraph
• More Telegraph
• Yet more Telegraph
• CNBC India
• Hindustan Times
• The American
• China View
• India Times
• Press Trust of India
• Irish Times
• The Daily Express —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 08:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Section for comments from uninvolved users

There seems to be a conflict of interest at the heart of the claims, an important issue which should be aired in the article. Peterlewis (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The letters column of the Daily Telegraph is a blatantly unsuitable source for anything, let alone a BLP article. Please go through the sources, carefully check them against WP:BLP and strike those that fail. . . dave souza, talk 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You think a letter from pachauri to the telegraph is not reliable? All the above sources are relaible I certainly see noting wrong with them. --mark nutley (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Having looked further down the letters column, you should have made that clearer but I'll accept that – though not clear if it adds anything to his Guardian article. Having looked at some of the other links, you're piling up brief reports in other newspapers that the Telegraph blogs and articles are making accusations, just mirroring the original articles without new reporting. Also, at least one of the links seems to have nothing to do with the case. Please clarify what you think these links show. . . dave souza, talk 23:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave: Newspapers tend to report the same news (if they stick to the facts, that is). The original research was published in the Sunday Telegraph and in the India Times. The other sources are there to show that other newspapers have picked up on the story, not because they add anything new. Richard Tol (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

By "not because they add anything new" you mean that, for example, the Deccan Herald says "In a special report, The Sunday Telegraph said that" and then quotes the Telegraph verbatim. What's described in the list as "NC TimesThis is actually a seperate article from the telegraph which also covers COI (Does two separate pieces give more weight?)" is a story on NCTimes.com Blogs and is described at the foot as "filed under Brad’s Sci-Tech Blog, Minding Your Business." Isn't Mark even trying to get near BLP standards? The original draft story is misleading, as the somewhat contradictory Telegraph story says "The letter, which included information first disclosed in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, was circulated to all the 192 national conference delegations" making it clear that they started the story running, but precedes it by saying "The issue of Dr Pachauri’s potential conflict of interest was first publicly raised last Tuesday when, after giving a lecture at Copenhagen University, he was handed a letter by two eminent ‘climate sceptics’." The newspaper notes that Monckton is a longtime critic of the IPCC’s science, and we shouldn't be leaving these two undescribed. The Business Standard which is cited as a second source is simply a mirror of the Telegraph story. So, once again, this seems to be throwing a whole lot of mirrors or blogs of the Telegraph story in the hope that these relatively trivial mentions of what should be a serious story will impress readers by sheer numbers. Not convincing. . . dave souza, talk 18:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave: Please study the discussion above. First, there was the letter. Then people said it was only a letter by two fringe cases (one a senator, the other a former policy advisor to a prime minister). Second, there was the article in the Telegraph. Then people said it was only the Telegraph. Third, other newspapers cited the Telegraph. And now you want to reject this because they are copycats?

The bar is not just in the wrong place, it also keeps moving. Richard Tol (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please strike any blogs. Obviously they fail. I'm trying to evaluate this case, and what I see is various fairly minor papers, generally non-broadsheets, saying "The Telegraph has run this story". There are also a few mentioning Pachauri making a strong denial of the Telegraph's arguments, and of course the two longtime skeptical politicians handing round a letter based on the Telegraph article. So far, it all seems to come back to the Telegraph, and the last couple you added make a very small passing mention of the accusations having been made in the past. Have I missed a source that isn't the Telegraph making its own substantive investigation and evaluation of the case? . . dave souza, talk 20:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave, there are no blogs in the links above. They are all main stream newspapers. Which ones do you think are actual blogs? mark nutley (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read my comment of 18:11, 18 January 2010 carefully – there's at least one, I've not checked every link. . . dave souza, talk 22:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

India Today added it's own investigation. Richard Tol (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will review that, hopefully tomorrow. . . dave souza, talk 22:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave the India Today link above not only mentions the telegraph story it is also an investigative piece as well Take a look mark nutley (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dated January 10th. This is old news, which you already listed in your list of links. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read what i actually wrote? the India Today link above so yes it is already up there. So what is the actual point of your post? mark nutley (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

From the way you put it, it sounded like you were erroneously presenting it as a new story. Apologies for the misunderstanding. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

So you don't forget, Mark, you're still listing at least one blog. . . dave souza, talk 00:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave i updated the list to show that the North County Times and The Californian reporters is an opinion piece in that paper, is that the one you meant? --mark nutley (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The one that, as I pointed out above, says "blog" at the top and bottom of the page? What makes you think that qualifies as an "opinion piece"? Also, is the Telegraph blog used below among those you're citing? . . dave souza, talk 10:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of three sentences about the COI allegations. This article makes it clear that the allegations are noteworthy and reliably sourced. I would suggest something along the lines of, "In December 2009, the Telegraph acused Pachauri of conflict of interest related to his involvement with the IPCC because of the positions he holds in organizations that the Telegraph claims to benefit financially from activities related to climate change programs. Pachauri's positions include...[list the positions]. Pachauri has denied any conflict of interest, calling the Telegraphs's allegations a "pack of lies." I wouldn't include anything about the letter from Monckton and Fielding at this time as it doesn't appear to have received the same level of press attention as the original Telegraph report. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• As an addendum, I just checked ProQuest NewsStand and Infotrac, and this story is getting coverage in the Indian press, including reports that don't appear to be linked online such as:

• "TERI denies charges against Pachauri", The Hindu. Chennai: Dec 24, 2009
• "'Ridiculous to suggest that TERI is a company about money'." The Hindu 24 Dec. 2009
• "No link with carbon-trading firms; charge baseless: Pachauri." PTI - The Press Trust of India Ltd. 22 Dec. 2009.

• The Hindu is the second largest English-language newspaper in India and the PTI is India's largest news agency. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, I'm happier with these sources, and with the Times of India piece having looked at it in detail. . dave souza, talk 10:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Definite support There are lots of reliable sources, particularly Indian reliable sources not typically available on the web (I have been using ProQuest access). The arguments for not including it based on coverage are rather mimsy. Alice Lyddel (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Section for comments from involved users

The paragraph should be updated, as other voices (Booker, Delingpole, North, Pielke, Singh) have joined Fielding and Monckton. But it should be included. Richard Tol (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How do i do that? I think i made a mistake on this setup :) There is no edit button for the first part :( --mark nutley (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

fixed it now, you should have an edit button now. ATren (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks atren, Rtol would you like to update the paragraph to include the stuff you mentioned? --mark nutley (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait for some more votes. There are three issues, though: (1) Pachauri exclusively advises companies that would benefit from climate policy (Booker, Delingpole, Monckton, Fieldging, North, Pielke, and indeed Pachauri himself); (2) Pachauri seems to use his position on boards etc to bring business to TERI (Singh); (3) TERI Europe's accounts are being redone (Booker, North, and indeed Kumar herself). The proposed paragraph has (1) only.

My view is that there probably is enough now to justify including the claim and rebuttal. Clearly the Telegraph is going hard on it, and if Pielke is willing to back it, I guess it is likely to become part of the standard anti-science line, rather than just a piece of Monckton/Fielding nonsense. But we should be ready to cut it if the Tele gives up, and turns out to be another short-lived talking point. JQ (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I still think it's too early. We have a claim by two fringe figures being propagated by a handful of op-ed columnists. There's not much to it. Nothing has changed since this was last discussed other than the Telegraph story, which doesn't seem to have been picked up elsewhere. As you imply, it's a "talking point" - because Wikipedia is not news it's simply not appropriate to include every bit of muckraking except if it becomes a significant issue covered by a wide variety of reliable sources (which this isn't yet - Marknutley apparently still hasn't understood that blogs are not reliable sources). As an aside, it's interesting that the denialists' latest tactic appears to be to attack the scientists, since they've evidently failed to refute the science. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the above sources are blogs, were did you get that from? --mark nutley (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a closer look. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to spot the blogs. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And, for the record, the following are major news sources: [15][16][17][18][19]. So clearly there is plenty of non-blog coverage here. Perhaps you could focus only on these sources I listed, Chris? ATren (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with ChrisO. This is still just the Telegraph and the same minor newspapers as before. I'm waiting for more substantial coverage, ie. where is the (non-Opinion) articles in Le Figaro, Jyllandposten (to stay local), Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, the Times, the Guardian and every other major news-outlet. The Australian seems to have been the only other major newspaper who has taken this up... (US Today above for instance is not an article, but from their news-aggregator which points to the Telegraph). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As Dave Souza says above, what we're seeing here is basically just the Telegraph's claims being re-reported by other outlets. Note that Pachauri complains of a vendetta by the Telegraph. He would hardly be making that complaint if he was under attack by a broad range of outlets. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the "uninvolved" section above. Cla68 (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The subject's COI is established by many sources and it can be reasonably attributed without harm to the public figure. Good job Marknutley! (And with ignoring ChrisO PA too.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion hasn't changed (BLP, NOT#NEWS are very clear): this material should stay out. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The allegations have been reported in multiple reliable sources -- news articles, not blogs/op-eds -- as has Pachauri's denial. The allegations are directly relevant to Pachauri's role as a public figure. Therefore, I would argue in favor of inclusion. J. Langton (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text

As there seems to be increasing support for inclusion, let me propose a text. In order to prevent edit warring, let's draft the text here. Richard Tol (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In a series of articles, the Daily Telegraph reported on potential conflicts of interest between Dr Pachauri's role as the chairperson of the IPCC and his roles as an advisor on energy and environment to a range of companies and organizations. This led to a call for his resignation by Steve Fielding and Lord Monckton. Later reports focussed on Pachauri's membership of the board of ONGC and research grants for TERI, financial irregularities in TERI Europe, and TERI's research on the implications of rapidly melting glaciers in the Himalayas. Dr Pachauri has denied all allegations.

It needs to be a little more neutral, "In a series of articles, the Daily Telegraph reported on what it felt were potential conflicts of interest...Later Telegraph reports focused on Pachauri's positions as [list positions]. Pachauri has denied the allegations, stating "[give a good Pachauri quote]". I'm still not convinced that the Fielding and Monckton call should be mentioned yet until it is discussed by more RS. Cla68 (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• There is no need to quote 28 (!) sources to cite four sentences. One source per sentence is perfectly fine.
• No Monckton/Fielding, no Delingpole. Get rid of those.
• Wording needs to be more neutral. "In a series of articles, the Daily Telegraph asserted..." -- ChrisO (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• @ Chriso No Monckton/Fielding, no Delingpole. Get rid of those. Give a good reason for their non-inclusion within the rules please. (post above in comments for involved so we ca nkeep this as clear as possible) Thanks. --mark nutley (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Cla68 has already given the good reason for excluding Monckton/Fielding. Their claims have not been widely reported and they are fringe figures. Delingpole is a blogger and self-described polemicist. His blog is not a reliable source and there is, in any case, no need to cite it in this instance. If material is covered by mainstream news reporting there is no need to cite bloggers (even if they were acceptable sources). -- ChrisO (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry i had not seen Cla68`s post above, agreed, however should there be other calls for him to step down (such as in newspapers) we could add those at a later date? (not monckton & Fielding) any newspapers asking for him to step down?

Let's not start all over again. The call for resignation has not been widely echoed so can be left out. Then Delingpole can go too, because he only echoes what others said. (Delingpole saw the piece by Booker and North before it was published.) Richard Tol (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we're close to agreement here. Your text, with the proposed mods (esp Monckton removed) looks OK. Cut some of the refs - we do *not* need 5 refs for one statement. Could you re-propose the revise text below? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Second proposal

In a series of articles, the Daily Telegraph asserted that Dr Pachauri has a conflict of interest between his role as the chairperson of the IPCC and his roles as an advisor on energy and environment to a range of companies and organizations, including Pegasus Capital Advisors, GloriOil, the Chicago Climate Exchange, Toyota, Deutsche Bank and NTPC. Later reports focussed on Pachauri's membership of the board of ONGC and research grants for TERI, financial irregularities inanomalies at TERI Europe, and TERI's research on the implications of rapidly melting glaciers in the Himalayas. Dr Pachauri has denied all allegations, writing "I am proud of my association with various organisations, but such associations are limited to my providing them with advice essentially on clean technologies and sustainable practices. There is no question of their influencing the functioning of TERI, the IPCC or myself."

There are 16 references to show weight, which was the main concern of many of the commentators. Richard Tol (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• The statement "financial irregularities in TERI Europe," is stated as though it is a fact, but the source cited is very speculative, making allegations about "mysterious" sums. Either cut that, or provide better sourcing and make it clear that these are allegations. You seem to be sourcing the glaciers statement to Dellingpole's blog, not acceptable. As for the numbers of sources, they're not only unnecessary, but don't add weight if they just report that "The Telegraph has said this". Please cut out the mirrors, as I was discussing above. My own preference would be to keep to a more general statement of conflict of interest as in the earlier edition, listing companies adds bulk and weight to what are still just allegations. . . . dave souza, talk 11:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave: I'll let you fight the weight battle with those who think that a fact has to be reported multiple times before it can be believed. Ditto for the list of companies.

I replaced "irregularities" with "anomalies" which is the word used by the director of TERI Europe to describe the predicament she's in. Richard Tol (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is regrettable that you've expanded your initial proposed text, rather than just cutting the disputed stuff. This is going to drag things out. On the issue of references: I would say that whilst you'll need to convince people *on talk* that X is supported by a reasonable number of refs (if they doubt that), once it is agreed and moves on to the article page the numbers of refs can decline to 1-2. Distinguish two meanings: statements, especially controversial ones, have to be clearly supported (but in that case one good ref suffices; 5 poor refs don't); they must also be given due weight, which is established on talk William M. Connolley (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to cut the list of organizations and the citation. Was put there at the request of cla68.

I agree that the number of references is excessive. Kim Peterson insists on that, though. Richard Tol (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Petersen please - i'm a Dane not a Swede :-) And No. That is not how my comments should be construed... I was arguing for demostration in broadness of coverage (that demonstration is sufficient on talk) - i don't believe we have it yet, as i stated on your talk - but since it seems that consensus indicates otherwise, i'm going to grumble in the corner :-P We are moving towards something that is reasonably acceptable though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Should you point out that the IPCC does not have a code of conduct/guidelines for conflicts of interest? Both of the parent organizations of the IPCC (WMO & UN) have guidelines, but the IPCC does not. Arkane2 (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Secondary source? . . dave souza, talk 14:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Confused by your query and not familiar enough with Wikipedia etiquette. If something does not exist, how can there be a source for it? It's a statement of fact: the IPCC does not have any such guidelines. The reason I brought it up is to clarify that this is a criticism of ethics rather than a violation of some IPCC code governing ethics. Arkane2 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SYN – we need a source stating that this is significant for this article, and looking at the primary source alone to conclude that there is no guideline, and that this implies something, is original research – we only present conclusions or syntheses that have been verifiably published by someone. These policies are particularly important on a biography of a living person. Hope that helps clarify things, dave souza, talk 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• To clarify, I'd be happier with something on these lines:

In a series of articles, the Daily Telegraph asserted that Dr Pachauri has a conflict of interest between his role as the chairperson of the IPCC and his roles as an advisor on energy and environment to a range of companies and organisations. Later reports focussed on Pachauri's membership of the board of ONGC, research grants for TERI and alleged financial anomalies at TERI Europe. Dr Pachauri has denied all allegations.

That leaves out the list of organisations and the allegation about glaciers which was supported only by a blog, and lets the reader follow the link for Pachauri's denial if interested. Selecting the best sources where five or so are listed is best done by those proposing this paragraph. . . dave souza, talk 14:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Richard Tol (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In a series of articles, the Daily Telegraph(ref to article here) asserted that Dr Pachauri has a conflict of interest between his role as the chairperson of the IPCC and his roles as an advisor on energy and environment to a range of companies and organisations (refs to these companys here Pegasus Capital Advisors, GloriOil, the Chicago Climate Exchange, Toyota, Deutsche Bank and NTPC). Later reports focussed on Pachauri's membership of the board of ONGC, research grants for TERI and alleged financial anomalies at TERI Europe. Dr Pachauri has denied all allegations.(refs to rebuttels here)how many?

Is this what you mean dave? I`m ok with your proposel just want to know were do we stick the refs :) --mark nutley (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is, like William, that two good references for each statement will suffice: perhaps the Telegraph report I discussed as used earlier and the Times of India for the first sentence. If Pachauri has notable connections with these organisations, that should be stated in the main part of this biography rather than in this paragraph. Which two or three references do you think are best for each of the sentences? . . dave souza, talk 17:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC) amended 17:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me as well, though the financial anomaly thing belongs on the TERI article (if any) and not here, since it isn't Pachauri related (except very indirectly). I also think that that part is too much claim and too little substance... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim might i ask you how you come to the conclusion that TERI and Pachauri are only indirectly related? He does run that place right? So of course that is related to the conflict of interest how can it not be? I`m for that staying in. Rtol, would you be so kind as to write up another draft along the lines of Daves suggestion and we`ll see how it looks. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pachauri is a director of TERI Europe. Richard Tol (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He is director-general of TERI, but where do i find that he is the director of TERI-Europe? (He is only mentioned there as a Trustee). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

<ec> It's a good point in that the one source I saw cited was very speculative, and said that a whole lot of people had responsibility for the accounts meeting Charity Commission standards, not just Pachauri. Is there another better source for this allegation? Since we say "Later reports focussed..." the implication is that there should be more than one source for each point. Have other sources mentioned TERI Europe? if so, perhaps "research grants for TERI and his relationship with TERI Europe". . . dave souza, talk 19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the Charity Commission, Pachauri is a trustee (and the only one): http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ShowCharity/RegisterOfCharities/ContactAndTrustees.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1077624&SubsidiaryNumber=0 Richard Tol (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As Cla68 now also had a chance to comment, I put Dave's text on the main page. I added the list of advisory functions to the top of the "career" section with a reference. Richard Tol (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, being idle I'd not copied links from the earlier edition, so have added links to ONGC and TERI which don't seem to have close links for readers. . . dave souza, talk 10:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to archive this discussion if someone knows how. Richard Tol (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, nice to see this finally done and dusted :) --mark nutley (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

{{hab}}

{{hat}} Side issue resolved. Collapsing to promote further productive discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The proposed addition begins On December 15th 2009 in an open letter,, yes MN asserts that this story has now rumbled on for nearly two months. There is a basic calendar problem that needs to be addresed William M. Connolley (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There is also a significant calender problem with the introduction to the RFC - it has not been on the article for "several weeks". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange, i am sure it says "which was in for several weeks" And it was before WMC reverted it. So what is your issue here kim? mark nutley (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the text (or any version of it) hasn't been "in for several weeks"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

[20] [21] Diffs say otherwise. mark nutley (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

From the Dec 29 to Jan 7 doesn't make "several weeks". Yes, i had checked. Btw. the only reason it stayed there was because most people weren't aware that page lock had ceased... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, one day shy of two weeks, what a terrible mistake on my part. We are not discussing why it stayed there, this is to decide if it should be in there.mark nutley (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

8 days and roughly 11 hours are "one day shy of two weeks"? Incredible. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just checked my diary again, it is 10 days from 29/12/09 to 07/01/10 so yep i miscounted as you appear to have done also :) However as i said, we are not here to argue how long it was in, just if it should be in. That`s why this rfc is here. --mark nutley (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that you are miscalculating right? It was there for 8 days 11 hours and 17 minutes. Not to mention that to most people "several" means a bit more than 2. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact this all started in [22] so ya this has been in and out for a fair few weeks now in one form or another mark nutley (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And was reverted within 15 minutes. Just correct your mistakes, please, they are misleading. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated it to stop further complaints, it is ten days you are obviously not counting the first and last days it was in, i am counting the days here kim not the minutes and hours, sheesh --mark nutley (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

{{hab}}

ubiquitous cows of India

I'm confused by this entry: HEC Paris appointed Pachauri Professor Honoris Causa in October 2009.[7] He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment.[8]

Would it not follow then that Pachauri would favor the elimination of cattle in India? They contribute large quantities of methane which is harming the environment. Would it not in fact be better for the environment if these cattle were killed and shipped to Africa or other places to feed the poor? As a bonus, the food the cattle were previousyl eating could instead be converted into bio-fuel to replace the coal that India is burning to polute the environment with CO2.24.87.71.192 (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1890646,00.html#ixzz0b3sPeSg4 India's ubiquitous cows — of which there are 283 million, more than anywhere else in the world — are assuming a more menacing role as they become part of the climate-change debate. By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane — a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide.24.87.71.192 (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)