Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson

Questions re: primary source, statement of fact, waiting for secondary source (specifically about lawsuit outcome anti-SLAPP case)

tl;dr territory, plus a rhetorical framing of the events to date rather than a neutral statement. Feel free to focus on something more specific, i.e. propose "change X to Y using Z reliable source".
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The questions before the editors are: I - what is a reliable source? II - what is a statement of fact? III - what belongs (or not) in the lead of a bio? IV - combined, what is or isn't valuable information to Wikipedia readers? The following is in reference to talk between @LearnCivics and @Clayoquot, for which @LearnCivics is very thankful for the coaching, direction, explanations, and WP: links from @Clayoquot. 1) Mark Z Jacobson is a PhD in climatology with a Wikipedia biography page. 2) In 2017 Jacobson (plantiff) sued Christopher Clack, also with a PhD in climatology, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PNAS (defendents) for libel and other torts. 3) In 2018 Jacobson withdrew his suit. 4) the dispute was widely reported by the NY Times, San Diego Union Tribune, Washington Post, and at least three others, all cited in Wikipedia. 5) as such this is a major story, a brief paragraph summarizing the dispute is published in the Wikipedia lead and further describe in the body. 6) in April 2020 the court granted defendents motion for attorneys costs to be paid by plantiff Jacobson. 7) this was reported by Robert Bryce of Forbes. 8) however it was published in Forbes.Com not the print magazine and is therefore deemed a self-published unreliable source, per WP:FORBESCON. 9) in July is was discovered by @LearnCivics (no relationship to Jacobson) that a. In May 2020 Jacobson filed a motion for reconsideration. b. In June the court granted the defendents motions for payment and denied the plantiff Jacobsons motion to reconsider. c. Clack submitted attorneys fees of $75,000. d. PNAS submitted attorneys fees of $535,904. 10) the source for (9) is the US federal government website for the D.C. Superior Court, www.dccourts.gov specifically https://eaccess.dccourts.gov/eaccess/search.page.3.1?x=w*98LtbQNQiCEtYkGFow8aWT1p*MZanCmEdFIcj9uxAYqaF3v0Yuz0uA5pBXt0y5rrx7FwRRVA5rXFTcZ4HXzg docket 4/20/20 order that defendants motions are granted, signed judge J.Wingo, and Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendants¿ Motions For Costs and Attorney¿s Fees Under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act signed by Judge Wingo submitted 06/25/2020 14:54:22. kc. Image 11) www.dccourts.gov is considered by @LearnCivics to be an irrifutable primary source, not subject to misinformation and public manipulation, therefore highly reliable. 12) in Talk: Mark Z Jacobson, 'lawsuit and anti-SLAPP undue weight in the lead?', editor @Red Rocks Canyon believes: a. an additional statement such as "court order for defendants motion to collect attorneys fees is granted" is "minor" and doesn't belong in the lead. b. 'Just wait for some newspaper to pick up the story.' 13) WP:BLPRS says a source must be verifiable. Is not a court order signed by a US Federal judge (PDF) on a .gov website of the court a verifiable source as unlikely to be challenged as can be? 14) WP:BLPPRIMARY says to not use trial transcriptions *to support an assertion*, however, @LearnCivics insists that the words "court orders motion by defendants granted" or "court orders motion by plantiff denied" are NOT assertions. 15) As per WP:PRIMARY, policy " A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." @LearnCivics insists that a. the words "court orders motion by defendants granted" or "court orders motion by plantiff is denied" are as straightforward and descriptive fact as can be. They are the actual wording at the head of the court document, and repeated at the conclusion. b. No specialized knowledge is required to comprehend "granted, denied, or ordered." No legal analysis is being made, and the logic of the ruling is not being summarized. c. Any educated person can access the courts ruling on PDF without specialized knowledge. d. Any educated person without specialized legal training can still understand the meaning of one sentence such as "court orders motion by defendants granted" or "court orders motion by plantiff is denied." 16) A follow-up to the previously published Wikipedia biography page clearly stating there is a libel suit is of utmost interest to Wikipedia readers. 17) Regarding 12(b), having up-to-date information on a Wikipedia page regarding the outcome of a legal proceeding should be of upmost concern to Wikipedia readers, and having to wait until "some newspaper picks it up" shouldn't be the basis for an update to a previously published proceeding. 18) An award of over $610,000 is not a minor news item. Therefore it is also not a minor statement. 19) what if no newspaper ever picks up the primary court order and makes a secondary news article about it? Does that mean that per Wikipedia policy, it didn't happen and can't be stated in a Wikipedia biography? Therefore: I - is the direct website of a federal court a reliable, verifiable source? II - is notice of a court order granting, denying, or dismissing a plantiff's or defendents motion, worded directly as such, without opinion or expression, a statement of fact? III - is a courts ruling on a legal matter previously secondarily sourced by some of the largest newspapers in the country and previously published in the Wikipedia biography lead worthy of a single sentence follow-up, regardless of whether or not a newspaper has written about the decision and ruling, thereby making a secondary source? IV - shouldn't Wikipedia readers have the benefit of learning the outcome (being a ruling with a court order, or an appeal of that order) of a legal matter that has previously been published in Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not a reliable secondary source has written about the outcome, if the source of the outcome is the publicity available documents in the government website? All of the above is a lot to digest and the editors and moderators of Wikipedia are thanked in advance for their thoughtful participation in this matter of what we hope you will agree are very serious questions. Furthermore, the page has reported issues. Hopefully timely, up to date information can resolve some of the issues. LearnCivics (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

4 questions on Wikipedia policy re: BLP primary sources and statements of descriptive fact

4 specific questions in the format of "change X to Y given Z":

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final or not

I notice there have been some edits added to Jacobson's bio saying "In 2020 the court ordered Jacobson to pay the legal fees of Clack and NAS" and, later on that the Order says he "must pay the legal fees incurred by Clack and PNAS" with some amounts added. However, if we read what the Judge states in this Court Order of June 25, 2020 at http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2020/20200625_docket-2017-CA-006685-B_order.pdf, she states "[an] order awarding attorney's fees but not determining the amount of the fees is not final...Here, however, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration before the amount of attorneys' fees owed has been determined." Thus, the Judge is stating that while a motion for attorneys fees has been granted, no amount of attorneys fees has been ordered and that she still needs to determine the amount, which obviously can vary from 0 to the maximum. In addition, she is stating that nothing that has been ordered so far is final. Thus, it appears that the new edits don't accurately portray what has happened. Thus, at this writing, Jacobson has not been ordered to pay anything and if he is eventually ordered to do so, that amount may be 0 or a portion of the attorneys fees, so not necessarily "the legal fees of Clack and NAS" as opposed to none or some or a majority. Of course, he can request another reconsideration, as stated by the Judge or Appeal it, so the order may be rescinded if one is issued. It seems that the edits that were added should be removed or substantially corrected given that there is no final order in place for attorneys fees, whereas the edits suggest there is. 2601:647:5A00:86D0:7921:668:E53E:5703 (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

In fact, he is ordered to pay but the final invoice(s) is(are) not yet there. The Banner talk 17:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

If you go to the Washington D.C. Superior Court website, you'll see that NAS/Clack's Attorneys submitted invoices and a request for fees on 6/2/20 and Jacobson's Attorney submitted a request to deny all fees based on violating the Court's order and submitting unsubstantiated fees, among other reasons, on 6/15/20. On 6/22/20. Clack/NAS submitted a reply to that. As shown, there has been no decision by the judge on the issue of whether Clack/NAS or Jacobson will win that issue (whether some or all fees will be denied or approved). The only decision was on 6/25/20 to deny a request for reconsideration. Thus, there is no order to pay fees. The judge is current making a decision on the amount of fees, if any. So, it is not clear why anyone would claim that a Court has a standing order in place for someone to pay fees when no such order exists. The order that exists if for the Court to consider the invoices submitted for fees, and the Court has a right to deny such invoices. 2601:647:5A00:86D0:C9E4:D2AA:3690:6EDF (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The decision was that Jacobsons attempt to dodge the bullet was denied and that he has to pay. But that amount is not yet set in stone. The Banner talk 18:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

As shown on the Superior Court website and based on the Judge's own statement that the amount of attorneys fees has not been determined, there is no order for Jacobson to pay fees. If there is you should show the order and the amount ordered. Stating the "amount is not yet set in stone" is an acknowledgment there is no order. An order granting a motion for attorneys fees is different from an order for attorneys fees. I think others should weigh in on this issue.2601:647:5A00:86D0:C9E4:D2AA:3690:6EDF (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

He has to pay but it is not known YET how much to pay. The Banner talk 18:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The exact sentence in the intro of the bio is "In 2020 the court ordered Jacobson to pay the legal fees of Clack and PNAS." As you acknowledge, the amount of legal fees required to be paid has not been determined, and as you know that could be 0 if Jacobson's request is granted, in which case the court will have ordered Jacobson to pay no legal fees. So, the statement in the bio is wrong. Regardless, there is no order to pay legal fees, and you still haven't shown where that exists. Only a motion granting legal fees to be considered has been approved, and the judge is considering both parties motions to determine whether the amount to pay is 0 or the full amount or something in between. Even if half the fees are granted, the above statement would be wrong since the court will then have ordered only half the legal fees of Clack and NAS, not "the legal fees of Clack and NAS." Regardless, there is no order currently to pay fees. Others should comment. 2601:647:5A00:86D0:C9E4:D2AA:3690:6EDF (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

And when you read the source properly, you can see that the request of Jacobson was denied. (Try reading the very end). The Banner talk 19:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You are talking about the Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied, not Jacobson's 6/15/20 response to Clack/NAS' specific request for legal fees, which the Judge is still deciding upon. If you read that, you will see that Jacobson's Attorney asks for all legal fees to be denied for multiple reasons. As stated by the Judge herself in the decision on the Motion for Reconsideration, she still has not determined the amount of legal fees and there is no "Final Order." Again, there is no current order for Jacobson to pay any specific legal fees no matter how you slice it. Given there is no final order for legal fees or any order that lists a specific amount, it is incorrect to claim there is an order for legal fees unless the goal is to say something that is not true. What do you think Clayoquot? 2601:647:5A00:86D0:C9E4:D2AA:3690:6EDF (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the source at all? The Banner talk 20:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Oransky article? It clearly states, citing Jacobson's Attorney, "The Court must now determine the level of attorneys' fees to share, which range from $0 to the amounts requested by the Clack and NAS attorneys." So again, even the source cited on the Wikipedia page is inconsistent with the claim on the same page,"In 2020 the court ordered Jacobson to pay the legal fees of Clack and PNAS." No final order for legal fees exists. Regardless, what actually matters is what the Judge says, and the Judge has issued no final order or suggested an amount.2601:647:5A00:86D0:C9E4:D2AA:3690:6EDF (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of which, Refs. 14 and 15 are both self-published blogs. Not sure how they are legitimate sources. 2601:647:5A00:86D0:C9E4:D2AA:3690:6EDF (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(Just back from a wikibreak). I've added some nuance to the article based on Retraction Watch, which is a reliable secondary source, and nuked the self-published blogs. It would be nice if the lawsuit was over and done with, but it isn't. To the person at IP address user:2601:647:5A00:86D0:C9E4:D2AA:3690:6EDF, please try to make your points based on reliable secondary sources, as those types of sources - not court documents - are what we use to write articles about living people. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Your changes have improved the accuracy. Another suggestion. The bio still states that "the court ordered Jacobson to pay the legal fees..." which both Refs 14 and 15 state incorrectly based on the Order. A more correct portrayal is "the court granted Clack and PNAS's motions for attorneys fees and costs," since that is exactly what the order is, not an order to pay attorneys fees, since that is a separate step. Specifically, the Court Order states (see link above), "ORDERED that Defendant NAS' Motion for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs Puruant to...is GRANTED" Same with Clack. Then the Court states, "ORDERED that Defendants shall provide their proposed attorneys fees... Plaintiff shall file any remaining objections..."

In addition as stated in Ref. 15, Jacobson may Appeal the ruling: "Once that is done, Prof. Jacobson will decide whether to appeal the questions..." Thus, the implication that Jacobson must pay attorneys fees any time soon or at all seems premature. The analogous Mann case has been going on 10 years and still hasn't been resolved. In his bio, there is nothing even in the lead about his lawsuit at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann It is discussed in the inner portion of the bio only, and that has been a much larger and longer case. It seems strange that the bio lead here even talks about the lawsuit and omits larger aspects of Jacobson's career.2601:647:5A00:86D0:C9E4:D2AA:3690:6EDF (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Good questions. With respect to the wording about the court order/motion, I've put a question at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. In general, we tell the story that reliable secondary sources tell, because we as Wikipedia volunteers generally don't have the legal expertise to understand the implications of what court documents say.

With respect to your point about the amount of emphasis the lawsuit is given in this biography, what I would suggest to get buy-in for your idea would be to first add more detail about other aspects of Jacobson's career to the article body, then summarize the additions in the lead, then reduce the emphasis on the lawsuit. If you don't have a conflict of interest you can do this yourself. If you do have a conflict of interest, I recommend using the Wikipedia:Edit requests process. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Four experts have now written Declarations under penalty of perjury that find that the Clack et al. authors (1) published false facts, not scientific disagreements, that led to their main conclusions; (2) such false facts arose due to their not following due diligence; and (3) 'their paper falls outside of the bounds of normal scientific debate'"

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/20-07-20-HowarthDeclaration.pdf

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/20-07-22-IngraffeaDeclaration.pdf

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/20-08-04-DiesendorfDeclaration.pdf

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/20-08-10-StrachanDeclaration.pdf

Given that these are publicly-available secondary sources and independent Declarations under penalty of perjury, thus should hold greater weight than newspaper articles where no-one is under penalty of perjury, it would seem to be balanced to include them in the discussion particularly in light of the following one-sided comments:

“David Victor of the University of California, San Diego, a co-author of the critique of Jacobson’s model for a cheap "100% renewable world", was motivated to contribute to the paper "when policy makers started using this [Jacobson] paper for scientific support," when it was "obviously incorrect".[71]

“News reports and academics have criticized the "ridiculous" lawsuit.[13][72][73][74][75] The Wall Street Journal commented it was "the wrong way to resolve such [academic and scientific] disputes."[76] The lawsuit drew the attention of The New York Times.[77]

These four declarations state that the Clack coauthors, who include Victor, published false facts, failed to follow due diligence, and published a paper that “falls outside of the bounds of normal scientific debate.”

The four declarations also imply that the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and References 13, 72, 73, 74, and 75 all did not follow due diligence by wrongly claiming or suggesting that the lawsuit was an academic or scientific dispute rather than a dispute over false facts, akin to researchers falsifying experimental data.

In addition and importantly, the statement in the Introductory Paragraph, “In 2020 the court ordered Jacobson…,” is both incorrect and directly contradicted by the next sentence, which says “the amount to be paid has not been finalized.” Jacobson cannot have been ordered to pay anything if the amount has not been finalized.

What is correct is that the Court is considering legal fees and may order the full amount, zero, or something in between. However, the Court has not yet considered the above four Declarations, which have not been submitted yet, so may also change its mind if it does and if they are. In addition, a Superior Court decision is not a final decision unless all parties agree.

I might suggest to change this to. “The Court has indicated an inclination to award legal fees. In the meantime, four experts have declared that the Clack Paper published false facts, not scientific disagreements, that led to their main conclusions.” 2601:647:5A00:86D0:5174:149A:AB93:88AE (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. My initial impressions is that the declarations should hold little or no weight at all on their own. The rest of the arguments supporting the proposed changes appear to be WP:OR after dismissing reliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Hipal. If you want this change made in Wikipedia, your best bet is to convince a journalist to write a piece about the testimony of the four experts and get it published in a reliable website. Then we can cite the journalist's piece. Our WP:OR policy forbids editors from using court documents such as the above in the way you are suggesting. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Point taken about needing a journalist source. For now, however, there is already a journalist source for one comment by the four Declarants.

Specifically, reference 12 (Woolston, nature.com) https://www.nature.com/news/energy-researcher-sues-the-us-national-academy-of-sciences-for-millions-of-dollars-1.22944 quotes the editor-in-chief of the journal Accountability in Research as follows:

“Shamoo does think that Clack’s paper was “unduly harsh and personal”. He says that “it was not written as if it was part of a scientific dialogue”.”

This statement supports the comment in the Declarations, that the Clack et al paper, “ falls outside of the bounds of normal scientific debate.”

The Woolston article also states, “But Shamoo thinks that scientists should be able to sue if they feel that a paper is “reckless” or “malicious”. “I’m a great believer in using all of the avenues of a civil society,” he says.”

Both quotes counter the claim in the discussion section of the bio that the lawsuit was “ridiculous.” For balance in a biography of a living person, it would seem that the Shamoo quotes should be included as well.

Also, the claim that the lawsuit was “ridiculous” was made by one LA Times writer, yet there are 4 additional citations piled on , incorrectly suggesting any or all used the word “ridiculous.”

In fact, not one did. References 72 and 74, in fact, make no comment either way on the legitimacy of the lawsuit, so it is not clear why they are stacked in with the other references except to damage Jacobson more.

It seems that only the reference that includes the word “ridiculous” should be included. However, given that “ridiculous” is inflammatory and is countered by Shamoo’s quote in Reference 12, it also seem that word should be removed or at a minimum countered by Shamoo’s quote.

In the discussion section of the biography, there is also not even a mention of what the lawsuit was about. All it says is “This 2017 critique resulted in Jacobson filing a lawsuit.” Not mentioning what the lawsuit was about coupled with the "ridiculous" comment makes it appear as if Jacobson didn't even have a reason to file the lawsuit.

In fact, reference 12 (Woolston nature.com article) states a reason, “In a letter accompanying Clack’s paper in PNAS, Jacobson and three co-authors wrote that Clack’s criticisms are “demonstrably false”.”

It would seem at a minimum, the biography should state that the lawsuit was filed over false facts, not scientific disagreements, as indicated in the Woolston article. The four experts merely confirm that the Clack, Caldeira, Victor, paper was based on false facts.

Next, the following quote by Victor, a coauthor on the Clack paper, seems to violate the biography of a living person requirement,

““Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.”

Specifically, Victor is stating in this quote that Jacobson’s results were “obviously incorrect” although there is no support cited in the bio anywhere that his claim is true. In fact, all four Declarations find this claim to be false. It seems that this quote should be removed due to lack of evidence showing it is true. In addition, it is by one of the coauthors of the Clack article, so seems redundant at best.

Here is the quote “David Victor of the University of California, San Diego, a co-author of the critique of Jacobson’s model for a cheap "100% renewable world", was motivated to contribute to the paper "when policy makers started using this [Jacobson] paper for scientific support," when it was "obviously incorrect".[71]

Finally and most critically, in the introduction, the claim that the Court has awarded legal fees against Jacobson is still completely false and there is no evidence anywhere, including in any Court Order, that an Award of legal fees has been made. It has been over a year since the last Court Order, and if an award were made, it would either have been appealed or Jacobson would have paid it, but the Biography shows no evidence of either. Given that biographies need to be supported by facts and contentious material should be removed “immediately,” I would suggest this be corrected to the truth, namely, “The Court has indicated an inclination to award legal fees, but no amount has been determined.” 2601:647:5A00:86D0:F135:591C:E603:F075 (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Please review WP:AGF.

If there's information that you feel is completely unsourced, it's unclear. It seems you're still trying to dismiss reliable sources in favor of others.

I suggest making brief edit requests that clearly identify the content to be changed or added with all references, indicating if there are any references with contradictory information. --Hipal (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, this article has been abused for PR for years. I wish you luck. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent reversion

The edits reverted were factual, up-to-date, and referenced. By removing them, the Overview now claims Jacobson was only ordered to pay fees without acknowledging the California Labor Commissioner ordered that his own fees be paid and the reason why, namely because the critique he filed a defamation lawsuit about in Washington DC "tarnished Plaintiff's reputation" and "defending his reputation" was necessary for his job, as stated in the references cited, including the Labor Commissioner's ruling itself. Telling only one side of the story in a biography of a living person contradicts Wikipedia's rule "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints" and "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons). The other information reverted was also factual, non-controversial, referenced, and up-to-date. 2601:647:6680:2B0:F566:E9FA:CC6:ED9C (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Your changes, while citing sources, came across as having the sole purpose of overstating praise of the subject in violation of WP:BLP. Regarding "telling only one side", I don't see that being done. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. If you are Jacobson, or associated with him (your IP address is the same provider and location as others on this talk page and in the edit history, indicating that you have a conflict of interest), then you must propose changes here on the talk page. Do that, one change at a time, and they will be considered. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 10 June 2024

Items in order they were deleted.

1) Factual statement added to overview. "In 2023, Jacobson was selected by Worth Magazine as one of "the 100 people who have made the most significant impact on the world this year." "

Same fact in "100% Renewable Energy" section. In 2023, Jacobson was selected as one of "the 100 people who have made the most significant impact on the world this year" by Worth Magazine. 2601:647:6680:2B0:7010:61CD:FBAF:3210 (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Item #2a. Fact added to "100% Renewable Energy" section after changing "139 and 143 countries" to "139, 143,": "and 145 countries"

Item #2b. Fact added to "100% Renewable Energy" section: "In 2021, he was named the "Visionary CleanTech Influencer of the Year" for "Visionary Individuals" at the World CleanTech Awards."2601:647:6680:2B0:7010:61CD:FBAF:3210 (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Item 3. Fact added to Overview: "Based on citations to published papers, Jacobson is ranked the #1 most impactful scientist in the world in the field of Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences among those first publishing after 1985 and #6 in the field of Energy among those first publishing after 1980.

Same fact added to the "Soot and Aerosol" section after the discussion of the Ascent Award. "Based on citations to his papers published in scientific journals, Jacobson is ranked the #1 most impactful scientist in the world in the field of Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences among those first publishing after 1985 and #12 among those publishing after 1788; in the field of Energy, he is ranked #6 among those first publishing after 1980 and #16 among those publishing after 1788. "2601:647:6680:2B0:7010:61CD:FBAF:3210 (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Merging of remaining items. Item 4a: Factual update of Washington D.C. lawsuit in the Overview: "He voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit five months later,, but was then ordered to reimburse the defendants for $503,000 in legal expenses.:

Item 4b: Fact added to Overview to add balance DC lawsuit and to be consistent with the same fact already stated in "Critique of 100% renewable..." Section: "However, in June, 2022, the California Labor Commissioner ordered Stanford University to pay Jacobson's own legal fees and reserved judgment on the remaining fees Jacobson paid in the defamation case because the critique in question "tarnished Plaintiff's reputation," and "defending his reputation" was necessary for his job. Stanford appealed."

Item 4c: Fact added to "Critique of 100% renewable..." Section based on published California Labor Commissioner ruling not previously cited: Add, after the sentence, "On June 26, 2022,..." The Labor Commissioner's reason was as follows: "The writing and publishing of the Clack paper, to the extreme, tarnished Plaintiff's reputation..." and filing a defamation lawsuit was necessary for his job "to remedy the damage caused by Clack stating false-facts in his paper.". Also, change "Labor Commission" to Labor Commissioner throughout."2601:647:6680:2B0:7010:61CD:FBAF:3210 (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Update. Given the length of time to review and the fact that this is a biography of a living person, but the statement in the Overview about Jacobson being charged with attorney fee reimbursements in D.C. without a balancing statement that the California Labor Commissioner ruled Jacobson's own fees should be paid by his employer and the reason, appears to misrepresent (by omission) factually what occurred, and in so doing harms Jacobson's reputation. Given that contentious statements must be removed immediately without waiting for a discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#:~:text=Contentious%20material%20about%20living%20persons,and%20without%20waiting%20for%20discussion), I suggest the statement "and was ordered to pay defendants more than $500,000 in legal fees.[24][25]" be removed from the Overview until all statements are reviewed and the statement, if maintained, be put in context.2601:647:6680:2B0:DD43:5805:8F81:7654 (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

References

1)  Not done. Cited to primary sources.

2a)  Done.

2b)  Not done. Cited to a primary source.

3)  Not done. Failed verification. The cited source includes several spreadsheets, one of which includes Jacobson's name, and the rank column doesn't say 1. It seems some WP:OR manipulation of the spreadsheet is needed to reach this conclusion.

4a)  Done already, more or less. The statement already says that, but I changed "pay" to "reimburse".

4b)  Done using slightly different wording; omitting details not needed in an overview.

4c)  Done using the more abbreviated wording proposed in 4b.

~Anachronist (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

With regard to 1) here are two additional secondary sources for the Worthy 100 award: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-z-jacobson-doesn-t-070000593.html https://cee.stanford.edu/news/professor-mark-jacobson-honored-worth-magazines-worthy-100

With regard to 2b) here are two additional secondary sources for the Visionary Clean Tech award: https://ieefa.org/people/mark-jacobson https://www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com/p/stanfords-mark-jacobson-discusses

With regard to 3) here are two additional secondary sources for his ranking based on citations: https://ieefa.org/people/mark-jacobson https://www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com/p/stanfords-mark-jacobson-discusses as well as the actual ranking distilled from the original source: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/vita/22-CitationRankings.pdf

In the Overview, suggest to change "and was ordered" to ", but was ordered" since he was ordered to reimburse only after a request for fees was filed following the dismissal. The use of "and" makes it sound like he was ordered to retract the lawsuit and pay fees.

In the Overview, suggest to change "retracted" to "voluntarily dismissed" or "voluntarily withdrawn" since that is what factually happened, as stated in Reference 21: "Mark Z. Jacobson has voluntarily withdrawn a $10 million libel lawsuit" and Reference 23: "I have decided to move on and voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit," "We note that Dr. Jacobson made the tactical decision to dismiss his $10 million lawsuit..." Retract means something entirely different from voluntarily dismiss. Note that Reference 22 is behind a paywall so is not accessible except if one pays, so is suggested to be removed. 2601:647:6680:2B0:6934:D219:476F:F0 (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The "Critiques of 100%..." section also uses the words "retracted" and "retraction." Suggest to change to "voluntarily dismissed" and "dismissal," respectively, for the same reason as above. 2601:647:6680:2B0:6934:D219:476F:F0 (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)