Talk:Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism of investigations[edit]

I see that Boris has made this more specific so that it reads that the criticism comes from two particular authors -- I think the language was better the way it was as a general statement that the investigations have been criticized. The two cites are only representative. I can add a multitude more to illustrate the point that the investigations have been widely criticized. Thoughts? Minor4th 05:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations that the investigations were "whitewashes" are very controversial, so I think more sources, with more attribution, would be very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that this is an article about Cuccinelli's investigation and not the CRU email episode. A couple of examples are enough to make the point; indeed, I would argue that there already is excessive coverage of the CRU investigations here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I think it can kept to one sentence by saying something like "The various investigations into the Climatic Research Unit email controversy have been criticized as a "whitewash" in the media, namely in [list the publications]." Then list all the sources in a single footnote. That will keep it brief. Cla68 (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I included two more references, two different sources for the "whitewash" point. I did not add language at all, so we are not running into UNDUE -- I just added sources to support the statement that the the investigations have been criticized. There are now four refs. I don't think it's appropriate to list each one because that implies that those would be the only critics, and that is not the case -- I could continue to add refs to make the point, but that gets unwieldy in the article. The general statement that 'the investigations have been criticized' should be sufficient, I believe. Minor4th 06:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think four refs are sufficient. Cla68 (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken it out. It's off-topic for this article - the UK inquiries did not investigate Mann (obviously, since he's not in their jurisdiction) but focused on the CRU. I deliberately did not go into any detail about the UK inquiries for that reason. I've replaced it with a couple of lines of reaction on the PSU investigations, which are relevant here since they are being cited by PSU in Mann's defence. I've added reaction pro and con, though I've only been able to find one critical response about the investigations - though it makes the point that I've seen being made elsewhere by denialists, so it would seem like a good summary of denialist reaction in general. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, three of us just agreed on how to word it, and you came along and unilaterally removed it. That isn't very helpful collaboration. Cla68 (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three? Check your counting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The three of you were missing the point (well, maybe not Boris; he alluded to it) that this isn't about the CRU email episode. Consequently the outcome of the CRU investigations and the related criticism isn't germane to this article. The three British investigations did not investigate Mann. My amendment has focused the reaction specifically on the PSU investigations of Mann, which are relevant to this article. Let's not stray into side issues here - the focus of this episode is Mann, not the CRU. Please do note that I have made an effort to represent critical opinion as well as supportive opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BRD[edit]

ChrisO made bold sweeping edits that change the tone and content of the article, I am reverting and invoking WP:BRD. Please discuss the proposed edits before making further changes. Chris removed the portion referring to the investigations as "whitewash", he removed the word "alleged" before "thefts", he inserted descriptions of skeptics that are POV, etc. These are edits that had previously been approved and discussed by three editors. Please discuss. Minor4th 12:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note in particular that two of the references you removed specifically mentioned Mann and the invrstigations related to him. Your removal of the word "alleged" in front of "thefts" was improper -- the investigation is ongoing and a whistleblower has not been ruled out. Describing every critic as a "skeptic" is unnecessarily POV, as is the insertion of right-wing, "free-market" descriptors to every aspect you dont like, and it makes the article cumbersome and hard to read. Minor4th 13:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ChrisO, please follow the process in WP:BRD - your reversion without discussion of Minor4th's reversion is disruptive, and could be construed to be against policy. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify - WP:BRD is an essay, not policy or a guideline. It's not a bad idea by any means, but it's not a policy and cannot be "invoked". Guettarda (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already pointed out above that criticism of the British inquiries into the Climatic Research Unit is not germane to the American inquiries into Michael Mann's work. However, I agree that one of the sources I removed - [1] - does appear to be germane and I'll restore that. Second, Cuccinelli's political allegiances are obviously relevant. Are you disputing what the sources say, i.e. that he is a conservative Republican? Third, the theft of the emails is an established fact. They weren't released with any authorisation and the method by which they were acquired does not alter that fact - whether it was a hacker or a supposed whistleblower who did it, they were stolen. The emails have been routinely described as "stolen" since the start of the controversy (see e.g. [2]. This issue has been discussed extensively over on the CRU controversy talk page and the article, you will note, describes the data as stolen. The "whistleblower" explanation is pure speculation and has no place here. Please see FAQ #5 at the top of Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Finally, blindly reverting and wiping out every edit I've made is grossly disruptive. Don't do it. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Chris apparently WP:OWNs the article, I will edit elsewhere where the collaborative process is still in play. Minor4th 13:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now produced a compromise version of the disputed line. The previous version wasn't very good because it was too vague - "The various investigations into the Climatic Research Unit email controversy have been criticized [by who?] as a whitewash..." That doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements, which requires biased statements to be properly attributed. The criticism is now specifically attributed to named individuals and organizations, citing the Fox News story mentioned above. It is also now specifically related to commentary on PSU's investigation, not the UK ones which, as I've pointed out, did not investigate Mann. It also went into way too much detail with a coatrack of claims. This is not the place to rehash all the criticism. It is only necessary for the purposes of this article to note three facts - that claims were made; that PSU cleared Mann; that critics didn't like the outcome. Anything else is extraneous detail and belongs, if it belongs anywhere, in other articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. It's YOUR article. Minor4th 13:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. Do you have any comments on the compromise version I've put forward, which restores the critical commentary you wanted to add? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris - look above. There is ample discussion about it that you have systematically ignored. We both know ot doesnt matter what I say or how good my arguments are in favor of my proposed edits, or how many other editors agree, youre not going to allow it. The discussion is already on this page. Do whatever you want. It's not worth editing with you. Minor4th 14:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I "wasn't allowing" or wasn't interested in discussing things, I wouldn't be reaching out to you now, would I? I didn't ignore the discussion above - I didn't participate in it at the time because I was asleep. I posted an explanation of my edits as soon as I'd made them. When you commented on my changes, I agreed with your argument that material that I'd removed should be restored. I reworded it and restored it, minus some material that wasn't germane or was excessive detail. I explained why some of the issues you raised had been resolved a long time ago (per the CRU talk page FAQ). I've asked for your input in working out a compromise wording for the article. If I wanted to impose my POV I wouldn't have added views that I personally disagree with. If you want to take your ball away then that's your choice, but I'm always open to reasonable discussion and compromises. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was appropriate the way it was. Now it's POV and your opinion that something is not germane or is excessive detail does not make it so. A host of other concerns have gone ignored as well --- "alleged" , "right-wing", "free-market" etc. You're bound and determined to spin it favorably to Mann and whitewash anything that might undermine the global warming consensus. I am not interested in engaging with you on this further. If you want to describe it as "taking your ball away" when you create an oppressive editing environment, have at it. Minor4th 16:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Versions[edit]

And just so that your misrepresentation of the extent of your edits does not go unchallenged, here is the difference between my version and your extensive revisions:

Minor4th version:

The e-mails prompted a major controversy and five separate inquiries – three in the United Kingdom and two at PSU concerning Mann's work. Both of the PSU inquiries cleared him of any wrongdoing. PSU's final investigation report concluded that "there is no substance" to the allegations against Mann.[1] The various investigations into the Climatic Research Unit email controversy have been criticized as a "whitewash" because the investigations failed to adequately address the issues of CRU scientists withholding temperature data, deleting emails to avoid Freedom of Information requests, and subversion of the peer review process. [2][3][4][5]


ChrisO version:

The e-mails prompted a major controversy and five separate inquiries – three in the United Kingdom focusing on the Climatic Research Unit and two at PSU concerning Mann's work. Both of the PSU inquiries cleared him of any wrongdoing. PSU's final investigation report concluded that "there is no substance" to the allegations against Mann.[1] The outcome of the investigation was welcomed by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Project on Climate Science, who welcomed it as a "return to common sense" in the face of "a manufactured distraction".[6] It was, however, criticized by a number of commentators such as free-market Institute of Public Affairs,[7], Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Fox News commentator Steven Milloy who characterized the outcome as a "whitewash", asserting that it had not adequately investigated the issues.

  1. ^ a b "Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E. Mann" (PDF). The Pennsylvania State University. June 4, 2010. Retrieved July 2, 2010. Cite error: The named reference "PSU Report" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Pat Michaels (July 12, 2010). "The Climategate Whitewash Continues". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 28 July 2010.
  3. ^ David Derbyshire (July 8, 2010). "Secretive and unhelpful. But scientist in Climategate storm STILL gets his job back". Daily Mail Online. Retrieved 28 July 2010.
  4. ^ Ed Barnes (Febuary 5, 2010). "Penn State Probe into Mann's Wrongdoing a 'Total Whitewash'". Fox News. Retrieved 29 July 2010. It was set up to be a total whitewash and the panel made no effort to investigate {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ Clive Crook (July 14, 2010). "Climategate and the Big Green Lie". The Atlantic. Retrieved 29 July 2010. The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann -- the paleoclimatologist who came up with "the hockey stick" -- would be difficult to parody.
  6. ^ "Second University Review Clears Climate Scientist". The Associated Press. July 2, 2010.
  7. ^ Donovan, Samantha (July 2, 2010). "'Climategate' scientist cleared by US university". ABC News.

You removed three references that were on point, you removed the specific criticisms, and you added a bunch of unnecessary POV language that makes it difficult to read. You mentioned five separate inquiries -- all of which dealt with Mann's participation among the CRU scientists. You included your own WSJ reference to support what you like, but you deleted my WSJ reference that takes the contrary view. You quoted a favorable source and made a less favorable source ambiguous and attributable to one person when there were three references and many more could have been included. Your characterization of adding my edits back and rewording is simply an inaccurate description of what you have done. And you did all this when I had specifically asked for discussion and after it had been discussed by three editors at length. That's just this one section .... Minor4th 16:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a second look. Your version is one-sided and weasely, ChrisO's version properly attributes opinions and covers both sides. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess up is down and black is white around here. Minor4th 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious flaw with Minor4th's version is that it is one-sided. The findings were praised and criticised, but his version ignores the praise. What's more, the criticism comes from fringe elements in the debate. That's a basic failure at NPOV. To make matters worse, that version says The various investigations into the Climatic Research Unit email controversy have been criticized as a "whitewash" because the investigations failed to adequately address the issues of CRU scientists withholding temperature data, deleting emails to avoid Freedom of Information requests, and subversion of the peer review process; as phrased, it assumes facts not in evidence. "Withholding data" is misleading - there's no consensus that data was withheld. "Deleting emails" appears to be false. And there's no evidence that there was "subversion of the peer review process". As such, while we can report on these complaints, we can't present them as if they were undisputed facts. Guettarda (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a flaw -- that's what the sources say. It's not for us to determine whether any of those things are true or not. That was the basis for the criticism, as seen in the referenced sources. Minor4th 17:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not a flaw to (a) only present one side, and (b) present disputed claims as facts? See WP:NPOV. Guettarda (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a very basic principle at work here: give both sides of the story. This is not optional - it's a cornerstone of WP:NPOV, specifically WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements. To quote, A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth. Minor4th's preferred version presents the allegations against the CRU scientists as proven fact. To quote further, It does not violate this policy when it is presented as an identifiable point of view. Saying that the investigations "have been criticized" leaves unanswered the question of did the criticising. Attributing the criticism to specific named parties avoids that. In addition, Minor4th's version omits entirely the supportive POV. The record shows that some supported the outcome of the investigations, while some criticised it. It's completely misleading to purport that the only reaction was a critical one. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, will everyone please remember that this article isn't about the CRU episode? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If Minor4th thinks that it is, I'd like to know his explanation. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the reference to "Project on Climate Science". This appears to be nothing more than someone's personal blog. It is not notable, and should not have a red wikilink. I am sure that there are plenty of RS that can be used. Better yet, remove the name dropping and simply say that some support the reports as "vindication" while others claim they are a "whitewash" and let the references say who said what. Q Science (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Project on Climate Science is specifically quoted in the AP article I cited [3] - we're just reflecting that. As for the "name dropping", I explained above that this is required by WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements. "Some" is a classic weasel word (see WP:WEASEL); you have to support attributions by identifying the source of the viewpoints. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is good. However, they are not notable and should still be removed. There are only 3 references under Google news, and 2 of those are the same AP article. Based on that, even though the WSJ is a reliable source, I would not use anything in THAT Associated Press article. I am sure that there are many others of better quality. Q Science (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an illogical proposition, I'm afraid, as it amounts to saying "because I don't agree with something in this article it is not a reliable source." It comes from a highly reliable news source, namely the AP. The AP reporter obtained reaction that he felt was noteworthy enough to include in his article. His article was published by the WSJ, which is a reliable source, and by other news outlets, which are also reliable sources. We're not in the business of second-guessing the decisions of reporters to quote particular people; we simply reflect their reporting. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you take out "former New York Republican congressman" as a descriptor of the alarmist quoted? (Yet left in Republican reference to skeptic quote). I take it the removal was inadvertent among your other revisions. I'll take the liberty of restoring it, since that is how the man is described in the source. Minor4th 13:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rv: why[edit]

Can't see the problem myself William M. Connolley (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the source? Please show me where it says "pioneering" or "widespread"? Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that as our Hockey stick controversy article says, Mann et al produced "the first quantitative hemispheric-scale reconstruction" of pre-modern climates. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed/POV tags[edit]

I have added {{cn}} tags to the "widespread" and "pioneering" statements, as these WP:PEACOCK terms are not supported by the cited reference. Should they not be properly cited, I'll remove the terms. It also gives a WP:POV appearance to the statement, so I added that tag. GregJackP Boomer! 17:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's well established fact, so it's not difficult to cite. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now cited. It only took a few minutes to do. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the source said "Mann is a pioneer", not pioneering work, but close enough that I won't quibble. It would have been much easier to cite from the beginning instead of just reverting AFQK. GregJackP Boomer! 19:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was also some peacockery about Michaels, which I've removed, and the honorific Dr. which we don't show per MOS. As he's the only climate scientist sourced as complaining, singular is appropriate, and his main affiliation is the Cato Institute which is significant. . . dave souza, talk 22:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits. Minor4th 22:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FOI request re Cuccinelli[edit]

I've seen several references that Greenpeace has entered FOI requests regarding Cuccinelli's links with Michaels and Singer. None of the sources are quite airtight, though NPR has seen fit to link one of them.[4] Can anyone find quality sources for this? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this editorial is adequate either, but I'll look further: [5] Minor4th 21:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, we're getting close. What I'm specifically looking for is info on Greenpeace's request about Cuccinelli's possible connections to Michaels and Singer. The FOI requests regarding the latter two (but not including Cuccinelli) are interesting, though they don't directly relate to the present article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: [6] Minor4th 22:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is no longer available but here's a cached version [7] Minor4th 22:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's the FOIA request regarding the connection of the two with Cuccinelli that I'm wondering about. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The university has sought an extension to the FOI request that Greenpeace filed in December for information on former state climatologist Patrick J. Michaels and another retired professor, both of whom are outspoken skeptics of global warming, as is Cuccinelli."

That implies a FOI by Greenpeace related to Michaels, "another retired professor" and Cuccinelli. Thats as close as i could find. Maybe someone else will have better luck. Minor4th 16:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I'll keep looking. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead[edit]

At the Climatic Research Unit email controversy the lead says "began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through a server hacking.". In this article the accusation from UEA is established as a fact ("stolen"). I'm not aware of why we should not use the neutral Internet leak instead of stolen [8][9][10]. If I've done something wrong I will happily self revert. I'm just wondering why this pejorative term is reinserted. Nsaa (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a pejorative term, it's a fact. The documents are universally described as stolen. Nobody that I know of has suggested that they were taken with consent. They very clearly weren't. Note that they would be still have been stolen whether they had been leaked by an insider or taken by a hacker. You're confusing the taking without consent (the theft) with the method (leaking or hacking). It's important not to get these mixed up. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of agree that the sources generally refer to the emails as stolen or at least obtained and released without authorization. How about "apparent theft" since you did not like "alleged theft". Minor4th 18:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "apparent" about it. Were the documents taken with consent or without? There is no source - none - which says that the university consented. That is not an issue that is in any doubt or dispute whatsoever. Let's not invent doubt where none exists. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, in each instance, the article should characterize it exactly as it is characterized in the cited reference. Minor4th 19:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was already. The cited reference is headlined "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center" and refers to the emails as "stolen items". As I said, at no stage has anyone suggested that the items were not stolen - the only dispute has been over how they were stolen, and even then the overwhelming majority of sources has attributed the theft to a hacker. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then. Minor4th 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, glad we sorted that out. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judge quashes Cuccinelli subpoena[edit]

Judge rules against Cuccinelli in U.Va. case Wikispan (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[11] ;) Wikispan (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war over "leading"[edit]

Why is there an edit war over labeling Nature a leading science Journal, given that wikipedia's own article on Nature states in it's lede:

Nature is one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals, first published on 4 November 1869. It is the world's most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal.

Doesn't most cited by definition mean leading? (also, anyone who has done any work in science whatsoever knows the Nature is tied with Science as the most prestigious location to be published for general science) So why is this edit contentious? --Sailsbystars (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted since there was no discussion of the issue. Not only is Nature clearly a leading journal by any objective standard (see for instance [12] "Nature is the world's most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal, according to the 2009 Journal Citation Report Science Edition (Thomson, 2010). Its Impact Factor is 34.480."), but their prestige is part of the why it is important to note that they made an editorial on an issue. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I found a good reliable secondary source that mentions the Nature editorial [13] and it doesn't use the word leading. At some point we should probably clean up the primary source references and replace them with reliable secondary sources and get rid of this he said/she said format. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up, title inaccurate[edit]

In the process of cleaning up this article, it's clear that Cuccinelli's initial CID was not a "climate science investigation", the CID refers to Mann seeking grants, and Cuccinelli stated ""We aren't targeting scientific conclusions." The current article title is therefore a misnomer, "Attorney General of Virginia's climate research grant Civil Investigative Demand" would be better. I'll think this over. . dave souza, talk 22:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An accurate title would be "Cuccinelli's Climate Document Fishing Expedition," but I don't think that would pass NPOV :-P. More realistically, the problem with both the current title and your suggested title is that they are too wordy. The most neutral and not wordy title I can think of is "University of Virginia Board of Regents v. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli." or perhaps "Climate research litigation between Ken Cuccinelli and the University of Virginia." I dunno, I'm open to suggestions, but so far I haven't seen any overwhelmingly better title.Sailsbystars (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That stalled a bit! Suggest Attorney General of Virginia's demand for University of Virginia documents has the virtue of being accurate and formal. Cuccinelli's demand for University of Virginia climate science documentation is perhaps rather informal, and is longer, though it does identify this particular demand more clearly. It's about time we moved it to an accurate title, so will try to implement this shortly to the first suggestion unless there are other proposals. . . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I suspect that most or all of this article is accurate... however the sourcing is horrendous. I perused around 10 reference and noticed that most sources were either unreliable or didn't verify the content. For instance, none of the first 4 sources listed are reliable. Given the controversial subject matter, we owe it to uninformed readers to use robust sourcing that satisfies our verifiability policy. The subject has received plenty of coverage in reputable newspapers and peer-reviewed journal articles, I have no doubt that the sourcing could be improved considerably. R2 (bleep) 22:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too busy to add sources right now, but check
--Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. FYI to both of you - at this point I'm mostly just removing unreliable sources and tagging issues. If I add any new sources it will be in a round 2. R2 (bleep) 16:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Cuccinelli a "global warming denier"[edit]

The text is: "[Ken Cuccinelli] is a conservative Republican Party politician and global warming denier ..." I removed the words "and global warming denier" and its cite to an obscure site, with summary = "Removed poorly sourced label per WP:BLP". Five minutes later Ahrtoodeetoo re-inserted with summary = "Undid revision 883319281 by Peter Gulutzan (talk) restore with supporting source". The source was indeed changed from an obscure site to a Washington Post article, but that article (which I'm reading via the wayback machine) is merely quoting an ad that calls him a denier. In other words it is still poorly sourced, as ads from political opponents are not reliable sources for material about living persons. Noting that the WP:BLP page that I referred to says "consensus must be obtained first" before restoring deleted content, I'm asking: where is that consensus? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I didn't read the source closely enough and didn't notice that the denier label was inside of a quote. I've self-reverted. I'm also going to leave a note about this at Talk:Climate change denial as people there may be able to contribute here. I did find this source, but I don't know if it's reliable. R2 (bleep) 22:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attorney_General_of_Virginia%27s_climate_science_investigation&oldid=1212605020"