" 

 == Your question at RfA == 

 Thanks for noting your concerns regarding the Phil Jones article. Unfortunately , to put the discussion in context requires a back story—a long simmering debate about the propriety of types of sources (blogs, opinion columns, news reports, science articles, and peer-reviewed science articles). I considered summarizing the positions of those with whom I am debating, but I think that's unfair, as I may get some details wrong, so, if I may, I'll briefly summarize my position on some of the issues: 
 # In science articles, peer-reviewed science articles are the gold standard. 
 # In science articles, other sources are acceptable although almost never blogs, as the usage of blogs is quite restricted, and it is not easy to image how they could be used in a pure science article). 
 # One reason for using a source other than a peer-reviewed science article is that peer-reviewed science article sometimes lapse into jargon, and other sources, such as science articles or new reports may be written in a way that is better for our audience, with the critical caveat that if a new report or science article is in dispute with a peer-reviewed science article, the peer-reviewed science article almost always wins. (Rare exceptions, such as when a non-peer-reviewed article notes an error in a peer-reviewed source, and virtually all agree that the peer-reviewed source is mistaken.) 
 # The strong preference for peer-reviewed science articles is less compelling for articles which are not squarely science articles, such as bios of scientists, and articles about the political, commercial, and other aspects related to science questions. (If such an article makes a scientific statement, then the preference for peer-reviewed science articles remains, but in other areas, we apply the ordinary rules.) 

 Sorry for that long background. 

 The Phil Jones (climatologist) article is about a scientist, not a science article. Many aspects of the dispute relate to some editors acting as if it were a science article, insisting that statements in news stories ought to be dismissed. 

 The quote in question comes from the BBC. Not all Reliable Sources are equal, but I trust that the BBC is considered one of the highest quality sources. It is my opinion that in a science article, if we had a statement from the BBC and a statement form a peer-reviewed science article, we would generally default to the peer-reviewed science article (although we might decide to include both and note the discrepancy.) However, the article in question is not a science article. I was quite unhappy that some were attempting to dismiss a quote from the BBC. In addition, part of the ""argument"" for dismissing the quote is that some editors have personal expertise in the field, and didn't agree with the substance of the statement. Sorry, that isn't how WP works. We don't permit expert to use their personal judgment to override a quote from a scientist. We do welcome expertise - but that expertise could be used to point to relevant documents on the subject, to clarify what a scientist means when they use technical terms so that editors weighing in can make a good judgment about how to use a quote, but we don't permit experts to tell us that the scientist didn't really mean what he plainly stated. If the scientist made a mistake (and that can happen), the BBC is perfectly able to follow up with a correction, or the scientist can follow up with a correction (here is a case where a blog statement might be acceptable). 

 In short, it was my view that certain editors were attempting to suppress a quote in the BBC, simply because that quote didn't fit with their narrative. 

 Could I have done a better job making my case? Almost certainly so. I've reread much of the exchange, and I confess, a couple times, I had to pause and think about what point I was trying to make. I can only assume those I was debating may well have not fully understood my point, so that may have lead to a higher ratio of heart to light that is desirable. 

 Sorry for the length of this comment. I do not like when articles include bad sources to accomplish a POV, nor do I like when good sources are removed to meet a particular POV. This is a perfect example where WP fails our audience. A reader seeing a discussion about the issue may well come to this article, and will be puzzled to see no discussion of it. I think we can do better. "