Talk:Marc Morano

POV tag

The POV tag was added this past June but no discussion has taken place here regarding why it was placed and what the objectionable content is. I would like to hear from those watching this page as to what, if anything, in this article they feel is non-neutral. Everymorning (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I think I added the tag. Here are some issues I see with the page:

• "He began his career working for Rush Limbaugh from 1992 to 1996, during which time he was known as 'Limbaugh's man in Washington'." The source is this Esquire article [1]. Only, the article doesn't verify the content. The article says "And so 'Our Man in Washington' was born." That's the closest thing I can find in the article to the content on our page. First of all, it seems like an opinion and should be attributed to Esquire or the particular journalist per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (if it's even notable), but mainly the article never says Morano was known as "Limbaugh's man in Washington."

• There also seems to be WP:UNDUE weight on the "AIDS fundraising dance party." We currently have just one source for this content, The Advocate [2]. I'm not getting the importance of this event, and it seems like WP:COATRACK to say "This led to California Republican Bob Dornan criticizing Steve Gunderson for allowing the brunch held the day after the dance party to take place in the Rayburn House Office Building." What does that have to do with Morano? Then this sentence "Gunderson replied that Morano and Dornan had deliberately misrepresented the events that happened at the party, and that security did not notice any illegal activities there" is someone's point of view (Gunderson's), but per WP:IMPARTIAL, I'm not sure we need such a close paraphrase of Morano's presumed opponent's view, and/or we need to hear Morano's side of the story.

• Regarding this content: "In 2007, Morano produced a minority report entitled 'Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007', which he expanded a year later to 'over 700 scientists' who, he claimed, believed that global warming was not caused by human activity.' The link that goes along with that content is broken and just goes to the main page of a U.S. Senate Committee [3]. We can't tell how notable this report was since there's no WP:SECONDARY sourcing to establish that it was covered elsewhere. Also, we should define "minority report." We shouldn't use the term "he claimed" per WP:SAY.

• The EPW section is too pro-subject. We have the same problem where the link just goes to the U.S. Senate Committee page. We have no WP:RS verifying that Morano helped "pioneer" the use of anything. The whole section comes off as non-notable, promotional, and poorly sourced.

• Per WP:CSECTION, we shouldn't have a section titled "Controversies." Sub-sections can be more descriptive, even including the word "controversy" but a whole section titled "Controversies" doesn't seem neutral to me. Re. the first paragraph in the section: I don't think Grist is WP:RS. It appears to be an environmental advocacy publication, and there are some discussions on the RSN questioning its reliability (example here [4]). However, looking at the Grist article in depth, the larger problem is that the article doesn't even mention Morano. So this is a case of WP:COATRACK. And the Grist piece says at the bottom it was published by ClimateProgress, a WP:BLOG of the advocacy group Center for American Progress.

• Then we have "Michael E. Mann has called Morano a 'hired assassin' who 'spreads malicious lies about scientists.'" That seems like a pretty clear WP:BLP violation to me. What's it adding to the article, in an encyclopedic sense? It makes it read like an attack page. If we were to consider including something like this, we'd definitely first need to establish why Mann's opinion of Morano might be notable. However, per WP:IMPARTIAL, we need to avoid quoting opponents in disputes. It's clear Mann and Morano are opponents. So we really shouldn't be putting loaded quotes like that in a BLP page. Then we have the pile on of Media Matters and Zeit criticizing him. Why are the opinions of these groups notable? If we include criticism like this, pick the most notable criticism, not just a laundry list of every list he's ever been on. And make it clear that its the opinion of these groups, not a fact. This criticism could be further contextualized by describing the source of these opinions--i.e. "according to Media Matters for America, a politically progressive media watchdog and lobbying group."

• "Morano has been criticized for publishing the email addresses of climate scientists on Climate Depot, often triggering a deluge of vitriolic emails." Criticized by who? Including this quote "When people like you attempt to rape honest people with integrity we will come for you, with our firearms in hand. ... You will reap violence for the violence you sow" sounds like we're blaming Morano for what followers of his (or followers of Rush Limbaugh?) did.

• There's currently no source for this content: "Morano repeated this action again in 2013, when he posted the email address of Shaun Marcott in response to Marcott having published a temperature reconstruction which resembled the hockey stick graph." Overall, there's only one source in the whole "Mail address controversy" section. It seems like a good source, Scientific American, but I'm unsure if proper weight is being given. That's just one source for three whole paragraphs of criticism. Was this covered elsewhere? If not, one or two paragraphs would surely suffice to cover the issue.

• It seems odd to have a funding section in a biographical article. I don't think I've ever seen this before. It makes sense for organizations, but not for people. Re. this sentence: "Climate Depot.com, run by Morano, is funded by Richard Mellon Scaife," that seems doubtful, as Scaife is dead. It sounds like Climate Depot.com received funding from Scaife. Should that entity have its own Wikipedia page? If not, the section should be titled more neutrally, perhaps as "Climate Depot.com." Then the funding of that site could be addressed as a part of that section, along with other notable details of the website.

• "CFACT's tax filings list Morano as the most highly paid member of the organisation." This doesn't make sense. What organization? Is Climate Depot.com an organization, or just a website? What is Morano's role there? If he's president or CEO, it would make a lot of sense if he were the highest paid person there. Typically someone in that position is. Also, how much did he make? Saying he was the highest paid means nothing-it's all relative. Maybe he made $1,000 and everyone else made zero. Phrased as it, it just looks like an attempt to attack him and make him look like a fat cat.

• That's after taking a quick run-down of the article. The TL;DR version is, this article needs work. Lots of pruning, some expansion, and more sourcing. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

Morano's views on climate change, as well as those by his website, are pseudoscientifc and should be described as such. That would be consistent with WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No. WP:FRINGE (guideline) doesn't declare that it applies for this article. And WP:BLP (policy) says "If you cannot find multiple reliable sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Needs edit

This sentence makes no sense. George W. Bush was not a Senator. "He was also communications director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under the George W. Bush administration." Karichisholm (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)