Ive mentioned the lawsuits and the Kennedy article as indicia of notability  We keep coming back to this point  you think the critics theories lack merit and that thats a reason not to report them in detail  I believe that we should report on notable controversies even if some Wikipedia editors think one side is clearly wrong  Indeed even if you R fiend Kevin Baas and I all agreed that the critics were moonbats that wouldnt affect by one iota the notability of the dispute  For that reason my opinion like yours is largely irrelevant  If youre curious though my opinion is that its hard to reach any sound conclusion on this subject without access to the raw data  The Judiciary Committee should hold hearings and subpoena the data  The evidence already available suffices to show the existence of at the minimum a legitimate subject of inquiry  The critics are not all moonbats  As for what youve done so far its information that certainly should be available on Wikipedia  Just in case you overlooked it by the way the  anon removed your statement that the revised CalTechMIT paper used precorrected data  I believe that statement to be false but I was willing to leave it in for a reasonable time with the citation needed tag  Im afraid I cant go into more detail about my reaction without forfeiting your recent praise for my lack of whining  With the limited time I have to devote to Wikipedia Im just not going to give a high priority to this area in its current form  You mentioned the NEP report so Ill stick in the information about one main point of contention there but I still dont feel motivated to try to edit this one article so that it includes all the information on the subject that should be in Wikipedia