Talk:CRA International

@Whizz40:, @Snooganssnoogans: other editors. Severe problems with the lead have come to my attention. I am not the user with the apparent undisclosed conflict of interest referred to above. But I want to step in to try to help get the article improved and consistent with Wikipedia policy, starting with a major problem in the lead. I work at CRA, so I do have a conflict of interest - and I will not directly edit the article. The Contact Us page instructs the article subjects to use the Talk page if an article is “incomplete, inaccurate, or biased.”

Based on research into Wikipedia policy and a close reading of the sourcing, I believe the placement of the second sentence in the lead (“Working on behalf of the fossil fuel industry, CRA has played an important role in weakening, delaying, or defeating a wide range of policies intended to mitigate climate change.”^[1]) not only violates WP: UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP: RECENTISM but it is mostly plagiarized and taken out of out-of-context. (See pp. 4)

The sentence takes up 65% of the lead and makes the lead read as if CRA exclusively consults for the fossil fuel industry into the present. Yet this is an article about a 56-year old NASDAQ-traded consulting company with 11 practice areas other than Energy & Environment. It had >$500 million in revenue in 2020 The current article is only a “stub class” but an archival search in a university library database for “Charles River Associates” shows 5,386 newspaper articles since 1977. See Search Result. Yet the very harsh criticism in the second sentence (and also sole detail about the firm’s activities) is based on a single paper, just published August 2021 in a niche academic journal, and the findings have not been reported on, at least to date, by any other reliable source. Furthermore, Franta’s paper is a historical examination (the last CRA paper cited is from 2009), not an evaluation of CRA in the present, as the second sentence of the lead now reads.

The harsh criticism can be kept almost verbatim, but only if it is moved to the body of the article to resolve WP:Undue and WP: Recentism in the lead; attributed as direct quote (to resolve WP: NPOV); and includes the full context that the criticism specifically stems from historical economic forecasting reports between 1991-2009 (not implying CRA still is producing such reports.) Assuming the sentence in the lead is moved, here is suggested language, for discussion purposes, that combines it with the current second sentence of the third paragraph:

In a 2021 paper published in Environmental Politics, Benjamin Franta argues that flawed economic forecasting reports written by four economists at Charles River Associates between 1991 and 2009, and paid for by fossil fuel interests, overestimated predicted costs and ignored potential policy benefits. Franta says the reports from CRA economists “played a key role in weakening, delaying, or defeating a wide range of climate policies” but notes that the reports’ conclusions were consistent with papers published at the time by other economists, also with funding from the fossil fuel industry, including at MIT and Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates.[2]

Franta’s opposition to what he calls “conventional economic wisdom” (See pp. 16-17), in part fed by these CRA reports, is central to the paper. As just one example of his opposing viewpoint to “conventional economic wisdom”, the author cites 10 mainstream media opinion columns, based on CRA research (e.g. from the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal - see pp. 5-10) whose conclusions he says are radically flawed. So, at the very least, even if one personally believes that Franta’s analysis is correct, the author’s conclusions and criticisms need to be attributed to him, and given the proper context that this is a dispute, under WP:Impartial and WP:Balance.

The proposal also removes the phrase “and was often presented as independent rather than sponsored by the fossil fuel industry” because it is misleading. The paper makes clear in its references (and in the body text, about a 1991 report) that the four CRA economists disclosed that the fossil fuel industry paid for their reports. The paper says some politicians and lobbyists failed to mention that fossil-fuel interests paid for the research. Anyone reading the current language will believe CRA was hiding who paid for research - and that is not what the source reports.

Thank you for discussing this. Basslonick1220 (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources say. If CRA disagrees with the peer-reviewed study, CRA can publish a response in an academic journal, CRA can ask that the journal correct any errors, and we can then consider whether to include that rebuttal or correction. The cited study says, "Charles River Associates played a key role in weakening, defeating, and delaying US climate policy for decades." I fail to see why we should remove this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with making improvements to the article in line with policy, as per my previous comments in the section above. The proposed wording changes above appear to be an improvement based on first reading provided there is content covering this issue in the body of the article citing reliable sources and a summary of it within an expanded lead. I personally don not see an issue with editors with a COI editing the article, provided they declare this, follow the policies and guidelines and go out of their way to represent other points of view in the article so that it doesn't put a burden on other editors to monitor and balance their edits or deal with difficult editing. To avoid having to bring in lots of people to manage this issue, I would suggest that if Basslonick1220 and Altwjh wish to go ahead and improve the article they do so. However, as I mentioned in the section above, Altwjh's recent edits need improvement before being restored. In particular, removing this content entirely from the lead does not currently appear to have consensus so my view is it is better to accept this and represent the views of other editors in your editing to maintain the consensus, rather than have everything held up because of what we do not agree on. If the changes do not have consensus that they are improvements, other editors can change them or revert them per WP:BRD. So, if you wish to improve the article and have a COI, my view is go ahead with the onus on you to make changes that most other reasonable editors would agree with and provide sufficient edit summaries and discussion on the talk page, as you have done above. If there is a reasonable difference in opinion, favor other points of view than your own and work to incorporate your improvements in a way that is consistent with this. Alternatively, if you wish to seek other independent editors to work on the article, you could try Wikipedia:Teahouse and perhaps use Wikipedia:Requests for comment to request input on specific questions. Whizz40 (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

To keep things moving along, I made the wording changes suggested above to the body of the article. I left the summary sentence in the lead because it appears this work has been very influential. Whizz40 (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I restored the wording changes discussed above since I agree they are improvements and the process follows WP:COIRESPONSE. Whizz40 (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Should the second sentence of the lead of CRA International (​​Working on behalf of the fossil fuel industry be removed because of WP:Undue (CRA has played an important role in weakening, delaying, or defeating a wide range of policies intended to mitigate climate change.^[1])

If not, does it meet, WP:Impartial and/or b) WP: Balance and is an inaccurate representation of the body of the article (as of Oct. 7, 2021). ? Basslonick1220 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be removed from the lead as Undue and No it does not meet Impartial or Balance and is not an accurate summary of the body of the article. a) The sentence takes up 65% of the lead and makes the lead read as if CRA exclusively consults for the fossil fuel industry into the present (when in fact the source it is based on examines CRA reports from 1991-2009.). Yet this is an article about a 56-year old NASDAQ-traded consulting company with 11 practice areas other than Energy & Environment. The current article is only a “stub class” but an archival search in a university library database for “Charles River Associates” shows 5,386 newspaper articles since 1977. See Search Result. Furthermore, this subjective criticism is cherry-picked from a single polemical paper by one author that was published August 2021 in a niche academic journal; b) The very harsh criticism in the second sentence fails to meet Impartial because unlike the body of the article, it does not attribute the subjective conclusions to the study by Benjamin Franta. Nor does it specify, is needed for Balance and accuracy, that the paper’s conclusions are solely based on Franta’s novel critique of economic forecasting reports created by CRA economists from 1991-2009, which Franta makes a point of saying became the “conventional economic wisdom” of the time, with other major institutions, including MIT, making similar forecasts. I am again disclosing my COI as an employee of CRA, as I have above. Basslonick1220 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• This editor works for the company. The vote should not count for anything. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep the sentence in the lead. The wording of this RfC is confusing. Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources say. If CRA disagrees with the peer-reviewed study, CRA can publish a response in an academic journal, CRA can ask that the journal correct any errors, and we can then consider whether to include that rebuttal or correction. Or CRA doesn't want to be linked with climate change denial and hindering efforts at climate change mitigation, the company may stop engaging in those actions and apologizing for its past work. The cited study published in a high-impact journal by a recognized expert says, "Charles River Associates played a key role in weakening, defeating, and delaying US climate policy for decades." I fail to see why we should remove this. I have no opposition to adding other content to the lead if CRA is known for its work in other fields. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Snooganssnoogans: You might want to rewrite your answer in the section below. JBchrch talk 20:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I think you might want to proofread your question, because it seems like words got mixed up or something? Or maybe a missing bracket? JBchrch talk 19:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Due to bad formatting errors in the RfC pointed out by User: JBchrch, I am withdrawing it here. I will repost it again below.

a. Should the second sentence of the lead of CRA International be removed because of WP:Undue? The second sentence is: ​​”Working on behalf of the fossil fuel industry, CRA has played an important role in weakening, delaying, or defeating a wide range of policies intended to mitigate climate change.”^[1])

b. If it is not Undue, does it meet, WP:Impartial and/or WP: Balance? And is it an inaccurate representation of the body of the article (as of Oct. 7, 2021). ? Basslonick1220 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be removed from the lead as Undue and No it does not meet Impartial or Balance and is not an accurate summary of the body of the article. I am again disclosing my COI as an employee of CRA, as I have above. a) The sentence takes up 65% of the lead and makes the lead read as if CRA exclusively consults for the fossil fuel industry into the present (when in fact the source it is based on examines CRA reports from 1991-2009). Yet this is an article about a 56-year old NASDAQ-traded consulting company with 11 practice areas other than Energy & Environment. The current article is only a “stub class” but an archival search in a university library database for “Charles River Associates” shows 5,386 newspaper articles since 1977. See Search Result. Furthermore, this subjective criticism is cherry-picked from a single polemical paper by one author that was published August 2021 in a niche academic journal. b) The very harsh criticism in the second sentence fails to meet Impartial because unlike the body of the article, it does not attribute the subjective conclusions to the study by Benjamin Franta. Nor does it specify, as is needed for WP: Balance and accuracy, that the paper’s conclusions are solely based on Franta’s novel critique of economic forecasting reports created by CRA economists from 1991-2009, which Franta makes a point of saying became the “conventional economic wisdom” of the time, with other major institutions, including MIT, making similar forecasts. Basslonick1220 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the sentence in the lead. Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources say. If CRA disagrees with the peer-reviewed study, CRA can publish a response in an academic journal, CRA can ask that the journal correct any errors, and we can then consider whether to include that rebuttal or correction. Or CRA doesn't want to be linked with climate change denial and hindering efforts at climate change mitigation, the company may stop engaging in those actions and apologizing for its past work. The cited study published in a high-impact journal by a recognized expert says, "Charles River Associates played a key role in weakening, defeating, and delaying US climate policy for decades." I fail to see why we should remove this. I have no opposition to adding other content to the lead if CRA is known for its work in other fields. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Snooganssnoogans, I have a little problem with comments like Or CRA doesn't want to be linked with climate change denial and hindering efforts at climate change mitigation, the company may stop engaging in those actions and apologizing for its past work, as it just feels a bit like advocacy and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I hope you'll agree that the sentence could be made less contentious by the addition of some WP:INTEXT attribution? — HTGS (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Remove it from the lead or reword it as an attributed statement from the source, rather than a plain statement of fact. Further, expand the lead to mention their primary reasons for notability.

Basslonick1220: I'm sure you could help to expand the lead by providing appropriate sources and even copy for editors to review and add, using thoughtful and specific edit requests. This way both parties could be happy; the lead can include the fact that CRA has been criticized for particular involvements, but also not have those statements overwhelm the lead. — HTGS (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

• I agree with adding in-text attribution to the sentence in the lead and support keeping it in an expanded lead summarizing an expanded article. However, I note Altwjh's edits were reverted and my edit to restore part of their contributions was reverted as well; the user has also been blocked. As I mentioned a few sections above, provided they declare any COI and follow editing policies and guidelines, I think their edits should be restored and their account unblocked. I do think their contributions need some improvement, but provided there are not copyright or other serious issues, then I think we should try not to bite the newbies and should favour improving contributions from new editors rather than removing them. Otherwise, it is difficult to see how this article will be expanded or improved because the editors who are interested in doing so are blocked or not being allowed to contribute. This should not mean we allow excess content to be added to bury something negative, but it would not take anything more than normal effort for other editors to review, tag, discuss and improve content that is added by new editors, including editors with a COI, rather than deleting it entirely. That process would help with general improvement of the article including ensuring balance, due weight and neutral point of view. Whizz40 (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Remove it (invited by the bot) There are multiple reasons for removal, each one sufficient to remove it. The lead should be a summary of the article, and that overreaching statement certainly is not. The overreaching statements within it also fails wp:ver. An overreaching negative characterization like that (and in a summary place in the article) also fails WP:NPOV in several ways including wording and wp:undue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Remove it The offending statement is already covered near the end of the article. It seems a bit WP:Undue to mention it in the lead. Jschnur (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Remove - besides being undue, it's horribly biased, in that "accused" implies that any anti-climate-change legislation is good, and any attempt to defeat it is bad. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Remove it - the premise is biased and the resulting inference is more biased. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Since the lede is so short, this probably shouldn't be there. If it's expanded to describe the activities of the firm in more detail, I'd support including it. Alaexis_¿question? 07:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to point out the Wikipedia policy is to take care when using an academic paper that draws a conclusion in isolation. “Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research.” WP: Scholarship. This is a very recent paper and if other academics choose to evaluate its analysis, they may very well find some of it to be flawed. I don’t mean to weigh in on the merits except to say that we do not yet know if further research will validate the author’s conclusions and therefore, it should not be given WP: Undue Weight. Basslonick1220 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)