`:::::::::I've 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 that's 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 wouldn't affect by one iota the notability of the dispute.  For that reason, my opinion, like yours, is largely irrelevant.  (If you're curious, though, my opinion is that it's 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 you've done so far, it's information that certainly should be available on Wikipedia.  (Just in case you overlooked it, by the way, the 96.241 anon removed your statement that the revised CalTech/MIT paper used pre-corrected 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.)  I'm afraid I can't 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, I'm just not going to give a high priority to this area in its current form.  You mentioned the NEP report, so I'll stick in the information about one main point of contention there, but I still don't feel motivated to try to edit this one article so that it includes all the information on the subject that should be in Wikipedia.      `