Talk:Tobacco industry playbook

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 22 April 2020 by reviewer Sulfurboy (talk · contribs).

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Nuccitelli, Readfearn and Corner blog posts sources?[edit]

"blogposts" at the bottoms[1][2][3] is indicator of less reliability. The other guardian source is an opinion piece; and the author a known expert.[4]But, is there justification for using them with so much weight in the article, particularly the blog posts? -- Yae4 (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the "blogposts" tag at the bottom of those three links is an "indicator of less reliability"?

Also, I removed the SPS tag you placed, as I'm not seeing a lot of SPS sources, and your comment here doesn't mention an SPS concern. Did you mean to use a different tag? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I think Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 284 § Climate Feedback and similar blog sources being treated differently? probably explains it.

Nuccitelli is an expert with a number of peer-reviewed publications specifically on climate change denial, and has a respectable h-index of 8. No fact in this article rests solely on Nuccitelli, but Nuccitelli, a domain expert, draws them together well.

Looking at Yae4's user page, I don't think he believes the science on global warming. Bit of an issue, that. Guy (help!) 21:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, put me down for not seeing any problems with citing those sources; meets RS, V, NPOV, etc. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, and in any case, I am beefing up all the citations. Guy (help!) 22:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, Also see "The Guardian blogs" at WP:RSPS: Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post... Nuccitelli is a semi-professional blogger with a masters degree in physics from U of California Davis[5] and extensive opinion blogging.[6] 21% of Amazon reviewers are totally unimpressed; 39% are less than fully impressed.[7] When it comes to climate science and meteorology, a PhD from MIT (with h-index of "only 13"),[8] who is intimate with the guts of climate models, is an actual expert. In this article there remain a few Guardian blog posts and opinion pieces used in Wikipedia voice, without attribution, multiple paces, which is a problem; Even JzG aka Guy said they should be attributed (elsewhere). -- Yae4 (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yae4, Nuccitelli is a a published author, and addresses, specifically, the extremely reliable sources that cover this content.

He is a recognised expert in the field. See e.g. Black, Kenneth (2018-01-01). "Latin America's Pursuit of Perfection: How the Region's Efforts to Achieve UN's 2030 Sustainable Agenda is Quickly Becoming the New Standard Other Countries Should Follow". North Carolina Journal of International Law. 44 (1): 191. citing this exact source: "see also Dana Nuccitelli, Harvard Scientists Took Exxon’s Challenge; Found it Using the Tobacco Playbook, GUARDIAN(Aug. 23, 2017), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/23/harvard-scientists-took-exxons-challenge-found-it-using-the-tobacco-playbook [9] (showing how energy giants like Exxon fight against the business harm climate change could cause)." His 2013 paper Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature has been cited over 1,100 times including nearly 200 cites last year and 43 this year to date. This is clear domain expertise int he specific field, the onyl quesiton is whether attributiuon is required, and in this case it';s not because w also have other sources saying exactly the same thing.

I am sure you consider this one of those articles "FUBAR'd by climate change alarmists", but Wikipedia is a mainstream encycloopaedia and this is mainstream fact from a recognised expert published in a mainstream source. I find it disturbing that you would rely on Amazon reader reviews (a platform vulnerable, obviously, to agenda-based non-expert editing) to be an appropriate source to push back on use of a published expert. Sure, "david clark" says "great book written by a liberal Berkley student,I enjoy reading books of FACT NOT CON GESTURE,WHICH MOST CLIMATOLOGY BOOKS WRITTEN, AND PAYED FOR BY FOR VERY RICH DEMOCRATS,FACTS WILL ALLAYS DICTATE TRUTH". You think that's a relevant assessment of the merits of Nuccitelli's work in the context of Wikipedia? I don't (and wouldn't ecven if it were not a complete reversal of the actual facts). Guy (help!) 13:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are Readfearn and Corner "expert" bloggers too? On Dana Nuccitelli, it's not clear a blog post being (briefly) cited in a law student's paper is significant, though it is something; who knows if the law student knew about the amount of editorial oversight. If Nuccitelli was able to appear as climate expert witness in a court case, then it would carry more weight. I could find no reviews of Nuccitelli's book published by independent reliable sources (i.e. indicating the book is non-notable). Sorry to be brief. Had to spend time here: [10] -- Yae4 (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]