Talk:Michael E. Mann

Removing stuff

Should we judge the content OR the person adding the content? Ref.:

1. "(rv it does not say hundreds of individual scientists in the source, wp:or) -> (rv - don't restore Scibaby edits or you will get blocked too)" and
2. "Virginia Attorney General's investigation: edit hyperbole, not supported by source" -> "m (Reverted edits by Sympaticox (talk) to last version by Arzel)"?

Nsaa (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Socks of banned users are routinely reverted to enforce the ban. If you want to take responsibility for the edits, do so with a clear edit summary. However, I suggest you consider the edits carefully. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that editing on behalf of a banned editor is unlikely to be tolerated by administrators or arbitrators. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I will take responsibility for fairly and accurately representing what the source actually says. Reverting socks of banned users is all well and good if they're engaged in vandalism, but are you really going to argue that an edit that accurately represents the cited references should be reverted to an inaccurate version just to stick it to the sock? That makes no sense at all. And ChrisO's edit summary that an edit that improves the article could subject a user to a block is nothing other than intimidation to push a POV and keep accurate information from the article. This is nuts. I am rewording this section to accurately reflect the source that was cited -- please do not edit war, revert to a POV version or threaten me with blocks for sock-related edits. Minor4th 23:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That is off course the way to handle this. Thanks Minor4th. Nsaa (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

{(edit conflict) Stephan Schulz, are you blaming Marknutly to be a sock? He has provided a well written comment (read the first diff). On the second one I've added a {{cn}}. Nsaa (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a farce "rm tag, editor hasn't read sources)". How the heck can I read a source for an unsourced statement? Nsaa (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've spelled it out for you in the article. You're welcome, don't bother to thank me. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately "burdensome and unwarranted" were nowhere in the cited reference, so I have removed that portion. I replaced the sourced information that you removed regarding investigation of deliberate manipulation of climate data, and I attributed the "shameful abuse" quote to the individual who actually said it. Minor4th 23:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're misreading what the Cuccinelli spokesperson said: "Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein said the revelations "indicate that some climate data may have been deliberately manipulated to arrive at pre-set conclusions" and the use of such data to apply for taxpayer-funded grants could be fraud." In other words, the investigation relates to the grants, not the data. We already say this in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The fraudulent act that is being investigated is the potential deliberate manipulation of climate data to arrive at a pre-set conclusion. I'm misreading nothing. I really hope that you did not remove this sourced information once again. Minor4th 00:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming English is your native language, in which case it should be obvious that the issue being addressed by the spokesman is "the use of such data to apply for taxpayer-funded grants". Do you not see the contradiction between your claim and the spokeman's statement that Mann's conclusions are not being investigated? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, please take care to read the sources properly: the quote you are objecting to is in the cited Washington Post article, to wit: "This past week, more than 675 Virginia professors also signed a letter asking that Cuccinelli drop his demand for documents related to the work of former U-Va. climate scientist Michael Mann, calling it "burdensome and entirely unwarranted."" [1] I've added the full quote to the reference so that it is completely clear to you, even without reading the linked article. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That was my mistake -- I searched "burdensome" and "unwarranted" but I did not see that there was a second page where the quote resided. My mistake on that, and my apologies. Minor4th 00:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Regarding the other issue, about the proper reading of the spokesman's comments, I'd like to raise it at the BLP noticeboard to get some outside views. I'll post a link shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've raised the latter issue at WP:BLPN#Fraud accusations against Michael E. Mann. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Minor4th 00:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The wholesale removal of the section on the AG investigation is improper considering a BLP notice was just begun and also considering this article is under probation and there is not anything even close to consensus about removing the well sourced section. I am going to give the editor an opportunity to self revert and seek consensus, and if he does not self revert, I intend to revert his removal of the section so that discussion can be had and consensus can be sought. Minor4th 02:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it. It's about him and it's well-sourced, so there's no reason to remove it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPN discussion and please refrain from re-adding contentious material to a WP:BLP until discussion concludes. A link remains to the main article, there is no need whatsoever to insist on a fuller summary here at this minute. Rd232 ^talk 03:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Rd, I don't want to edit war over this, but BLP and UNDUE are never reasons to remove when material is as well-sourced and directly relevant as this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, why don't you paste the entire AG investigation article here? WP:UNDUE is never irrelevant. There is too little information available about the investigation itself - most of the AG article is about responses. In other words, it's currently hot air and vapours, and reporting it here is undue. Mentioning it is covered elsewhere is OK [you did see the sentence I wrote linking it?]. Besides which, regardless of disagreement, the material is undoubtedly contentious at the moment and so you certainly should not be wanting to edit war it into the article prior to discussion concluding. Rd232 ^talk 03:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be fairly balanced in covering the accusations and the objections to the investigation. I'm not clear on why you don't think it's appropraite to include it rd232. Can you explain? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well apparently repeated requests to leave the long description out pending the conclusion of discussion (which is how contentious WP:BLP material is supposed to be handled) are going to be ignored, so I wash my hands of it. I was just passing by BLPN (I don't watch this article) and wanted an appropriate discussion (prior to reinsertion if so agreed); I have neither the stomach nor the interest to deal with edit warriors willing to ignore BLP. I've also already explained quite adequately at BLPN why detailing the investigation here is wrong. Bye. Rd232 ^talk 16:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And if passersby wonder at the "edit warriors" remark - this is not an unreasonable conclusion under the circumstances, given the complete failure to engage with the reasons given for removal, with justifications for immediate reinsertion of contentious BLP material including the red herrings of "well sourced" and "notable" (both of which are also disputable, but were not disputed). Rd232 ^talk 16:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what you think the BLP issue is? Freakshownerd (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Vague insinuations of fraud arising from reporting an investigation whose details are not clear, and conclusions seemingly far off. See also WP:BLPN thread where I've elaborated on this. Rd232 ^talk 19:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

{{outdent]] Rd232 is misunderstanding and misapplying BLP policy. Removal is not proper except in cases where controversial content is unsourced or poorly sourced, and that is certainly not the case here. The information is nowhere near WP:UNDUE either -- it's a short summary of the high points, as opposed to a lengthy discussion. Editors from "both sides" of the divide have edited this section and included positive and negative content with reliable sourcing. There is simply no policy rationale for removing the content, and I would appreciate if Rd232 would further refrain from misapplying BLP policy, as his arguments do not apply here. To call "well-sourced" and "notable" red herrings in this discussion shows an incredible failure to understand BLP policy. Minor4th 20:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The policy states that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious content should be removed immediately. If the quality of the sourcing is disputed, it makes far more sense to remove it temporarily NOT necessarily permanently pending outcome of discussion than to insist on retaining it whilst the quality of sourcing is debated. The quality of the sourcing is disputed because the vagueness of the claims creates insinuations; it doesn't matter if the vague claims are repeated accurately, there's still a BLP problem - this is well established BLP practice. Furthermore, if you need to look up what a red herring is, feel free to do so - then go back to where I made that statement. PS At BLPN you mention factionalism - well an insistence on maintaining vague accusations of fraud even before discussion on it concludes looks a damn sight more factional than wanting it removed temporarily pending discussion on whether to remove it permanently (or until the story develops). Rd232 ^talk 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, just to be crystal clear, the removal of contentious content pending discussion is a well-established practice regardless of BLP considerations. It just makes sense, in terms of cooling things down and avoiding edit wars and focussing on discussion. Rd232 ^talk 18:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you not see that removing the work of several editors with different POV's has not cooled things down but has actually instigated an edit war rather than heading one off? The BLP "issue" was over one statement about the nature of the fraud investigation, and in response you removed the whole darn section rather than clarify the one sentence or deal with that particular issue. I have now clarified that one sentence so there should be no issue at all. Minor4th 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It would cool things down if people accepted the principle of temporarily removing contentious content and allowing some time for discussion on what to do with it. It's not my fault they didn't; not being involved with climate change articles much for a long time, I'd clearly forgotten what a WP:BATTLEGROUND this is. Rd232 ^talk 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

When The Washington Post is reporting something about a public figure, that satisfies the BLP policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely so. Minor4th 19:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not remotely. From the very top of WP:BLP: "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Reliable sourcing is just the start of the BLP process. There are many more issues that need to be considered. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This twisting of policy to allow the removal of material has to end, Chris, and it's always the same names (and not just in CC articles). Please allow our readers to see what you have seen, unless it really is nonsense. Don't be a censor. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely correct. If the investigation had concluded, it could be briefly summarised. Because it has not, it requires WP:UNDUE detail to explain it with any sort of clarity. Rd232 ^talk 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How can a direct quotation from BLP be "twisting of policy"? Are you denying that WP:BLP states considerations other than reliable sourcing? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me know when you've decided where to hold this discussion. The double-posting is just adding to the sense of hysteria. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll confine followups to the BLPN - I suggest that you (and the others) do so too. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

The Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation part of the article gave huge weight to demands on the University of Virgina which only indirectly relate to Mann's bio, and misrepresented several of the sources. Firstly, the WaPo article of 2010-05-04 gave context and was specific about the demands, so I've expanded that accordingly. Secondly, "Mann has stated that subsequent investigations have validated his work and cleared him of wrongdoing." refers to the CRU emails, not to Cuccinelli's accusations. Thirdly, "Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein said that the Attorney General's office was not investigating Mann's scientific conclusions, but said that it was prudent to look into whether fraud had been committed through the deliberate manipulation of climate data to arrive at a pre-set conclusion." misrepresents the rather convoluted statement by the spokesman that the emails "indicate that some climate data may have been deliberately manipulated to arrive at pre-set conclusions" and [the use of such data to apply for taxpayer-funded grants could be fraud.] "Given this, the only prudent thing to do was to look into it," Gottstein added. "This is a fraud investigation, and the attorney general's office is not investigating Dr. Mann's specific conclusion." This convoluted claim would have to be put into the context of responses, and is best removed as adding nothing to the initial claims. If preferred, the whole paragraph could be severely trimmed as previously. The spin-off article also needs attention which I don't want to get into, but that also presents BLP issues. . . dave souza, talk 16:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I clarified. See my edit summary. Minor4th 18:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have amended text which mis-represented the cited WaPo article content. While the author did say the following...

The actions by Cuccinelli (R) -- who has sued the federal government over its regulation of greenhouse gases and has become a leading national voice in alleging that scientists have skewed data to show evidence the Earth is warming -- were cheered by those on the right, who have long targeted Mann as a leading proponent of the theory.

...no such "allegation of fraud" was documented in this article as having been made by Cuccinelli's office as I read it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed POV tag per ArbCom probation restriction

There is currently a restriction on adding or removing POV tags to probation articles in the climate change topic area without first reaching a consensus. Summary reversion of addition or removal of tag against the restriction is the proper enforcement mechanism. Here is the restriction [2]:

All editors are prohibited from adding or removing POV, neutrality or factual accuracy (or similar) tags to articles within the topic area of climate change, broadly construed, without first achieving a consensus on the talk page. Any new addition or removal without first having a consensus may be summarily reverted.

Minor4th 18:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not an Arbcom restriction. Probation for this article is the result of a community discussion. ArbCom has nothing to do with it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. It's on the ArbCom enforcement page. You are apparently not questioning the validity of the restriction or the enforcement of it. Minor4th 18:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not on "the ArbCom enforcement page", either. It's on the probation enforcement page, Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement, and at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log#Log_of_sanctions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I just want to point out that at time of writing the Virginia AG section is 16.7% of the article body text (i.e. excluding intro, publication, refs etc), while the CRU saga + Virginia AG is 41.3%. On what planet is this a due reflection of their significance in this person's life and work? Rd232 ^talk 19:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the Attorney General investigation actually relevant to this article?

Mann himself is actually not involved in the investigation - it is entirely a dispute between the University of Virginia and the Va. Attorney General over records which the university holds. Mann doesn't work for the university any more and isn't a party to the dispute or the litigation. So is it actually relevant to this article? And if so, surely it doesn't merit the amount of coverage it gets at the moment? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Cucinelli's EPA lawsuit

If Cucinelli's investigation of UV matters are relevant to Mann, then likewise is the general context, namely that Cucinelli is on a general crusade against the scientific consensus on global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have a source that says that Cucinelli is on a general crusade and how that relates to Mann, then let's see the source. Otherwise, it's irrelevant and it's your evaluation of events and application to Mann. Minor4th 10:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is relevant, if there's a good source. There's a difference between a person who's entirely uninvolved in the issue starting an action like this, and a person who's had prior involvement along the same political lines. But I'm not clear what the source is. I can't find it here, which was the ref after it in the text, unless I'm missing it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

Have you looked at page 2 of that source? "Cuccinelli, who is suing the Environmental Protection Agency over global warming, promised an objective review of the documents, but he said he has a duty to investigate allegations of fraud in publicly funded research." - so the source establishes the connection. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This source indicates a direct connection in that Cuccinelli's objections to the EPA is that their decision was based on faulty data, and that goes right back to Climategate, even though the article doesn't say that. But I think it establishes a link sufficient to justify it in this article without violating SYN. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that if the connection is made in the source. Minor4th 12:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to Rd232's continued removal of the header. [3] He's the only one removing it that I can see. Editing has been fairly collaborative here for the last few edits, with people building on the edits before them, and it would be good if the reverting of this section could stop. It's an important issue, whichever perspective you view it from (a serious investigation or assault against academic freedom). There's no reason to hide it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is zero need for a separate section. The "investigation" (fishing expedition) follows from the CRU business. It belongs in that section. Plus, as I pointed out in the edit summary, WP:UNDUE applies - and WP:UNDUE is not just some kind of optional frivolity. Rd232 ^talk 12:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SV on this. While the AG investigation was borne out of the CRU email incident, it is a separate phenomenon and should not be hidden under a section heading that does not accurately apply to it. Minor4th 12:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Shocking. Rd232 ^talk 12:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's uncalled for and really not helpful to this process. Minor4th 13:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've got a headache, and your comment was extremely predictable. Rd232 ^talk 13:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in citing policies (BLP, UNDUE), because we disagree with your interpretation. It'd be more helpful to focus on arguments. My argument is that this is a separate issue. It was triggered by Climategate, but is obviously not the same as it. And it has its own WP article, so it makes sense to lay it out summary-style in its own section, summarizing what the dedicated article says, as we do with Climategate and the hockey stick controversy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me first state unequivocally that my participation in this discussion is motivated solely by an interest in Wikipedia process and am uninvolved (by choice) in the CC debate.

I haven't tagged this (as perhaps I should) but, for the sake of editorial comity (and, perhaps, for starters), where in blue blazes is the sourcing for the following content...

In exchanges with the university—which the ACLU of Virginia said was "hard to conceive of ... as anything but a 'fishing expedition'"—a brief from Cuccinelli asserted that Mann and other scientists had manipulated scientific conclusions to produce results that could be used to support the regulation of carbon dioxide.

Rd232, I believe this is your edit. What is the sourcing? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see the main article, Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation, which has sources. In general, summaries are only sourced if particularly contentious - if you think the sourcing insufficient, feel free to improve it with references from the main article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not correct, Stephan. Anything challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source here, per V. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If its challenged or likely to be challenged, I'd call it "particularly contentious". Anyways, it's more productive to import the refs from the main article than to ask others to do it (and yes, I know where the onus is - it's still more productive to just do it). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be good if you could not add anything that isn't well-sourced. I think that's what the request was. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Touché! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to re-saddle this source-horse which appears to be already reined-in, but I just spent the better part of a half-hour assembling the assumed source citations and incorporating them into this article (...and I hate having to do that). Perhaps assuming every . and , to be potential points of contention is the most prudent approach when editing CC-related articles.

As to article content vs. source content, perhaps probably more to come. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hockey stick research

I think there should be some balancing information in the hockey stick section because there has been quite a lot of notable coverage about controversy over the hockey stick graph and underlying research. There is the book The Hockey Stick Illusion that has received some attention in reliable sources, and the main stream media has covered some of the theoretical challenges to the hockey stick graph and the quality of the research and data supporting it. I do not wish to over emphasize this but I think there should be some mention. Thoughts? Minor4th 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an entire article about that. There is no need to unbalance this article even further. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

When I was a baby Wikipedian all these years ago, the goal was to write articles so that overall the reader couldn't tell which side the writer was on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO -- by "unbalance" do you mean including critical well-sourced content that cuts against your POV? I think you have it backwards. It would balance the article, not unbalance it. Is it not correct that one POV should not be included without including other significant POV's that are well sourced? Of course you know this is correct since you have used the same argument to correct me on the Attorney General investigation article. Remember? In fact, when I included a critical bit of information on the article, FPAS went so far as to say that my edit was tendentious and block worthy because it was a refusal to follow NPOV -- apparently some admins think an editor should be blocked for including any content in an article without simultaneously including all counter positions as well. Any one else care to weigh in on this? Minor4th 17:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what could possibly have given the impression that your editing is tendentious. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

According to FPAS, it was the inclusion of sourced content without also including sourced content of the opposing viewpoint. Go figure! So what would that make you? X_X Minor4th 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

Chris, please don't revert wholesale; you reverted other changes too. Your lead is an example of poor writing. [4] We don't say what the allegations are, but we do say he denied them, and you're not telling the reader it was Climategate, which most people are familiar with. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

See above, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

[personal attack redacted] It doesn't look good, and it doesn't help. Most importantly it does nothing to improve the article, which is a bit of dog's breakfast. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

THE SOURCE YOU ARE CITING SAYS NOTHING ABOUT MANN. What is so difficult to understand about that? Have you even read the source you're citing? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad lead

SlimVirgin has been pushing a version of the lead that says the following:

In November 2009, Mann came to widespread public attention when over 1,000 emails written by him and other climatologists were leaked and posted on the Web, triggering a controversy that became known as Climategate.

This is simply wrong. The cited source says nothing whatsoever about Mann, let alone that he "came to public attention". It's about one of the UK inquiries and that had nothing to do with Mann. He was already a public figure before the CRU controversy (which is why he was targeted in the first place). The emails were not "leaked", they were stolen. They are universally described as stolen and the event as a theft - nobody has attempted to argue that they were released with the UEA's consent. Don't confuse the dispute over the method (insider or hacker) with the undisputed fact of the theft. Finally, this fails a basic BLP principle - it does not mention that Mann was exonerated and the allegations found to be baseless. This is a serious failure of basic BLP practice. I've rewritten the offending paragraph to the following, which does match the facts:

In November 2009, a number of emails sent by Mann and other climatologists became the focus of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy when they were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and posted online. Two reviews commissioned by Penn State cleared Mann of misconduct and stated there was no substance to the allegations against him.

I really think editors need to take more care here. The standard of editing on this article has been frankly atrocious for months. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has, just as it's atrocious everywhere in CC articles, and it would be great if you'd be part of the solution, not the problem. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be much more helpful if you could spend a little more time reading your sources and following basic BLP principles rather than posting personal attacks against other editors who are trying to fix BLP problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have done quite a bit to improve this article since I started editing it, rather than focusing on removing anything that doesn't suit a POV. Please do the same. Develop, don't destroy. And with respect, your use of BLP is getting worn. I've seen you do it too often, and there isn't a single editor familiar with my editing who would accuse me of being someone who engages in BLP violations, so that won't stick.

If you would focus only on quality and not politics, the article would improve. I suggest we develop this as though we intend to take it through the FAC process. That would require it to be neutral and well-written. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice active banana has tagged a source saying mann in not mentioned in conjunction with climategate, this source does [5] and is more suited mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I included this ref for the discussion of Mann. Minor4th 18:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am focusing on quality - I'm correcting your elementary mistakes. Look at the Washington Post article you just added to the lead. It says nothing whatsoever about Mann. It doesn't support any of the statements you want to use to make it about Mann. I've posted this out above. I pointed it out in an edit summary and you blithely ignored that. Another editor has added a "not in source" tag to it. When will you deal with this? There is no way that this is getting anywhere near FA if that's the kind of editing you're going to contribute. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The source was there for Climategate and for the fact that he was cleared. I'm glad you want to focus on quality, so let's start approaching this as a potential FAC. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't there for the fact that he was cleared. The report was about one of the UK inquiries which cleared the CRU scientists. Mann is not a CRU scientist and was not the subject of that report. If you don't know the facts, please don't object when someone corrects you. I've been following this from the start, so please have the grace to recognise when you are in error. It's not the end of the world and it doesn't justify lashing out at others. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"He was already a public figure before the CRU controversy" Indeed. Michael Mann has appeared in a number of television programmes, including BBC Earth: The Climate Wars, which rebutted global warming 'skeptics' quite brilliantly. Wikispan (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No one has said he wasn't. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"In November 2009, Mann came to widespread public attention ..." You wrote that. Rather strongly implies that he wasn't a public figure before, which is clearly wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't imply that. That is to misunderstand the English language. And anyway why the red herrings here? I've seen this all before, Chris, and it's pointless. Please focus on quality, not politics and games. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it implies that. If you say "Mann came to public attention" that clearly implies that Mann was not a subject of public attention before. Now please stop attacking your fellow editors. I am getting very tired of these constant accusations of bad faith. You'll note that I'm not making any such accusations against you. Kindly reciprocate. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You've dropped the word "widespread" from Slim's wording. This modifies the meaning! The result may not have been that great but the difference between your positions is nto as large as you're making out. Rd232 ^talk 19:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, thanks for highlighting that. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please source this

Whoever added this content, if you would please source it so that it does not need to be removed from the article:

In exchanges with the university—which the [/wiki/ACLU ACLU] of Virginia said was "hard to conceive of ... as anything but a 'fishing expedition'"—a brief from Cuccinelli asserted that Mann and other scientists had manipulated scientific conclusions to produce results that could be used to support the regulation of carbon dioxide.

Thanks. Minor4th 19:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor, perhaps you missed it above, but I grudgingly did the grunt work already and sourced them with the assumed citations from the main article. There may be one or 2 more that I've overlooked and will continue to pursue. Rd232 should have done that himself (though he did make a rather large edit and may have overlooked it). I'm digesting the content/sourcing as it exists now and issues may be looming. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I did miss that above and thanks for doing that. I know it is a pain, and I hoped someone would recognize this as their edit and be able to pull a source quickly. I still don't see a reference for this particular content though. I'll wait a while and see if Rd232 or whoever will come back and provide the source. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can locate it myself. Minor4th 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Evaluate sources

1. The source for the "hard to conceive" and "fishing expedition" is a primary source letter in pdf form from ACLU and AAAP to the Rector and visitors to U.VA. No indication where the letter was obtained or where it was reported or any other indicia of authenticity. There may be a secondary source somewhere, but in the main AG investigation article it is merely sourced as the pdf letter itself without any other context. I think that is a problem and not a reliable source in and of itself. Here is the ref: "Joint letter to the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia" (PDF). ACLU of Virginia & American Association of University Professors. May 6, 2010..
   1. How does this, as currently cited, satisfy WP:V/WP:UNDUE? It is a single, primary source. Being somewhat unfamiliar with the issue, was this not made note of in any third-party sourcing? (and any suggestions as to how to best thread responses appreciated)JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
2. On the Cuccinelli brief, the quote from the WashPo is "Cuccinelli's lawyers argued in essence that a small group of scientists including Mann have, essentially, manipulated scientific conclusions for years to produce results that would support massive regulation of carbon dioxide.", and the ref is: Template:Cite article.

I think somehow the sentence got mangled because it's two concepts with two different references, but in the article it looks like one sentence/one concept. The Washington Post is clearly a reliable source and I'll add that to the article and fix the sentence. What about the pdf/letter? Before I remove that, I would like other editors to comment on whether that is an appropriate source and whether that is actually the best quote we can come up with for this concept. Minor4th 20:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Controversial"

Whatever Arbcom might effect to corral edit-warring in any remnant CC article that is not yet 1RR, something should be (almost assuredly) coming. The guidance in the above oft-ignored tag is sage...and I've seen it work. Best to start embracing it now...and avoid the coming culture-shock...

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

I've never really understood the compulsion that drives some editors to see their favored text incorporated (even if only for a moment).

Consensus. Consensus. Consensus. Amen. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely - and when you consider that this BLP is so high-profile and the potential for harm so great, you would think that extra care would be required. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Stolen" emails

Our lede currently says that "... emails sent to and by Mann and other climatologists became the focus of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy when they were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit ..." [emphasis added]

Editors with long memories will recall a seemingly-endless discussion at Climatic Research Unit email controversy over this use of language. Consensus was finally reached to use this language at the lede there: "The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) 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)."

I hope we don't have to refight this battle here. Use NPOV language, please. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors with long memories will recall...

Of course assuming one participated in the discussion. Most editors (to include myself) did not. While I suppose I will be able to find it, a link to that prior discussion would be (have been) very helpful. Though this discussion is well underway (again?), perhaps there's still something to be gleaned there. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are some links to previous discussions at Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy:

• Theft (2), Nov 2009
• Citations for allegations of criminality, Nov 2009
• almost certainly not a hacking incident, Feb 2010
• Lots of reliable sources are saying that it was a leak
• etc, etc, ad infinitum

The point is that all of the arguments presented here, and many more, have made the rounds, time & time again, at the main article. We did (painfully) reach a consensus there, not to use "stolen" in the lede. Why repeat the arguments here? --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

From Wordweb:

Stolen - Take without the owner's consent.

What exactly do you find objectionable? Is this not a clear case of data theft? Wikispan (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained this elsewhere. There is no dispute about whether the emails were stolen. They are universally described as such, and the act as a theft. The cited source describes them as stolen. Nobody has suggested that they were taken with the UEA's consent. There is a dispute about how they were stolen, i.e. via an insider leak or a hack (though it's not much of a dispute when the vast majority of sources refer to a hack). Please don't confuse the method by which they were taken - a leak or a hack - with the outcome - a theft. And let's not invent disputes where none exist - the fact of the theft is undisputed. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought nobody was supposed to be editing CC articles at present. But since you are, please consider what I suggest as a good compromise between ChrisO's and SV's versions, both of which are correct, and both of which reflect bias. SV's is far more readable. (Sorry, ChrisO, but if I didn't already know the story I would get bogged down in your circuitous syntax.) I am using "stolen" instead of "leaked" since both are true and there's such a fuss. But I must point out "They are universally described as such..." is inaccurate; the MSM often says "leaked."

In November 2009, Mann came to widespread public attention when email correspondence among him and other climatologists was stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and posted online, triggering a controversy that became known as Climategate. Two subsequent reviews commissioned by Penn State cleared Mann of ethical misconduct.

As to the squabble over sourcing, how's this? http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/07/by_juliet_eilperin_a_pennsylvania.html --Yopienso (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought nobody was supposed to be editing CC articles at present.

Perhaps a plausible misconception under current circumstances, but life still goes on in CC (as far as I know).

I was a bit surprised by your quote as I was expecting to see "leaked" utilized in support of your assertion. Maybe I'm in forest/tree mode but can you explain? ThanksJakeInJoisey (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm retooling the suggested compromise a bit:

In November 2009, Mann came to public attention when the unauthorized online posting of emails between him and other climatologists obtained from a server at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia triggered a controversy that became known as Climategate. Charges of ethical misconduct were raised against Mann, but he was cleared of them by two subsequent reviews commissioned by Penn State.

Jake, I'm not "making an assertion," but attempting to reword the statement so as to remove bias and to make it more readable. We all agree on the facts, I think, and insisting on "stolen" or "leaked" reveals a POV inappropriate to WP. Either word works since both are true and both are used by the MSM, but the adamancy of the editors is POV-pushing. I would very happily see my new word, "obtained," replaced by "hacked" or "stolen" or "leaked" or "taken" so long as we retain "unauthorized." Wikispan and ChrisO did a fine job of discussing the use of "stolen." Totally true (except for the "universally" bit), totally logical. Trouble comes when an editor insists on "stolen" in order to cast the person(s) who obtained the emails as criminals. Those who reject "stolen" are crying, "There was no crime here! Some brave soul outed those crooked scientists." Neither spin is appropriate. But this is a great ado about not much; the general reader won't notice, and I for one am tired of this childish king-of-the-mountain business.

What does bother me is the garbled paragraph currently standing in the lede. "A number of emails" is weaselly and misleading--there were 1000s. The whole sentence is awkward. The second sentence dismisses allegations that have been unmentioned. Again, may I suggest a neutral rewording? I've given it two shots, and we have enough writing ability here that someone can improve that paragraph.

OK, I'm giving it one more shot myself, a bare-bones one:

In November 2009, Climategate thrust Mann into the public eye. Two subsequent reviews commissioned by Penn State cleared him of charges of ethical misconduct raised by the controversy. --Yopienso (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Stolen" is in no way a statement of POV. It's a simple fact. The emails were taken without consent. Nobody has suggested they were taken with consent. Please don't invent a dispute where none exists. "Leaking" and "hacking" refer to how the theft was carried out. They are methods, not outcomes. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris, if you'll carefully reread what I wrote, I think you'll see we happen to agree on this matter. --Yopienso (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I did, and you seem to be rejecting the use of "stolen" as POV. That's what I'm objecting to. The people who advocate the "leak" speculation are not denying that a theft occurred - they're claiming that there are extenuating circumstances. The fact of the theft is established and undisputed. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the use of "stolen" is true, logical, accurate, and appropriate. It's the insistence that that word and only that word be used that is POV. "Taken" and "obtained" are just as true, logical, accurate, and appropriate. I objected to using the word "stolen" if the word is chosen for the purpose of casting the "stealer" as a criminal. It directs attention away from the emails and their contents to the person(s) who allegedly stole them, or maybe--we don't know--to the person(s) who had or believed they had a proprietary relationship with them and "released" or "leaked" or "divulged" or "published" them. My personal opinion and understanding is that they were stolen, as per the fine discussions you and Wikispan wrote and I praised, but I can't prove that. I can prove the MSM says so, which is enough for WP. I think I'll just boldly edit, using the word "stolen." Funny, Jake and ChrisO read the same thing and Jake thought I was using the word "stolen" when I shouldn't while Chris thought I was refusing to. :S --Yopienso (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yes, that's what you get for trying to straddle the line I'm afraid! ;-) But on the contrary, "taken" and "obtained" are POV terms if they are being used to deny the fact of the theft. No single individual has a proprietary relationship with the emails - they are indisputably the property of the university and/or the various people who wrote them. There are actually multiple legal violations involved (copyright, computer misuse, data protection). That's why it's been universally described as a theft. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes! I like your winky, I agree that refusing to call a spade a spade (a theft a theft) is POV. It's not universal, though. For example. Yopienso

Anyway, I thought your revision was pretty good - thanks - and I've tweaked it a bit to focus it some more. But please note that the source you used [6] is the same source that SlimVirgin erroneously thought was about Mann. It's not - as I've said many times before it's about one of the British enquiries into the CRU and has nothing to do with Mann, whom it doesn't even mention. I've replaced it with this source that you suggested above. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think it was about Mann. I added it as a source for Climategate, as you well know. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't touch the refs; thanks for fixing them. You do realize that "Climategate" is used as widely as "stolen"? ;-) It's just after one in the morning here...zzzzzz....--Yopienso (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, I try to link to article titles rather than redirects. It's not a big deal though - I've used both the article title and the nickname so both bases are covered and all POVs are satisfied. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny, Jake and ChrisO read the same thing and Jake thought I was using the word "stolen" when I shouldn't while Chris thought I was refusing to.

A quick clarification please. Yopienso, my apologies for the confusion here but I wasn't making a judgement at all but asking a question. I simply didn't recognize your italicized text as "suggested text" and erroneously thought you were attempting to provide an example where "leaked" had also been used in lieu of "stolen" in media reports (which you had alluded to in the prior sentence). My bad...and I'm still digesting this "issue". Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

All good, Jake; thanks for explaining. Yopienso

• Comment - I don't know how you can argue on the one hand that content must be removed because it's a BLP violation to include discussion about an actual AG investigation centered on Mann for fraud related to his use of climate data, claiming that it is too vague and has not reached an ultimate conclusion -- while on the other hand argue for inclusion of an outright statement that emails were "stolen" or were the result of "theft," when there is an ongoing investigation (as far as we know) that has not reached a conclusion and has not even resulted in a specific charge or allegation. ChrisO, please explain the seeming contradiction here. Minor4th 21:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. With the AG affair, there is an allegation that fraud occurred, with no actual evidence behind it - that is why the civil investigative demand has been served. With the CRU emails, there's the undisputed and verified fact that a large amount of data was taken without the consent of its owner(s). The fraud is an allegation. The theft is a fact. What is being investigated is the circumstances of the theft, not the fact that it occurred. Nobody disputes that fact. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Really, understanding that difference is a nice test of whether someone understands the basis of WP:BLP. A fraud allegation against a named, living individual needs to be handled very carefully, out of respect for that person's reputation. A statement that certain items were "stolen" (as opposed to "leaked") by persons unknown carries no such implications. This isn't actually very complicated, so it must be the climate-change filter that's making it contentious. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. And note that the material would still be stolen whether it had been "leaked" or "hacked". There is a persistent (and I think wilful) tendency here to confuse methods - leaking or hacking - with outcomes - the theft. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The police may be investigating an allegation of theft, but the investigation is not over, and there are no charges, much less a conviction, so that there was a theft has not been established. We should find a neutral way of expressing it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

@MastCell...BLP or not, this appears to be dancing around the issue. Of course the e-mails were "stolen"...but that is from both a legal and ownership perspective. However (assuming Yopienso and others to be correct), there is also another perspective which apparently views this from a different perspective (perhaps some even supportive) and would reference it as a plausible (and perhaps even laudable) "leak". The question here, IMHO, is whether or not that second "leak" perspective has third-party RS enough under WP:V to warrant inclusion and, if so, how might any proposed content reflect that alternative view. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple question: was the material taken without consent? Yes or no? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You are debating "truth" which is irrelevant to a WP:V consideration. Strange...but quite, quite true. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a general problem with your editing, Chris, that you want articles to reflect how you see the world. But we do verifiability, not truth, and when there's an issue like this, we choose the most widely used neutral term. We don't deliberately choose the most provocative. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm discussing reality. The undisputed fact is that the material belonged to the University of East Anglia. The undisputed fact is that it was taken without the university's consent. The dispute (such as it is) is over how it was taken without consent, not whether it was taken without consent. Perhaps you would be so good as to provide a source arguing that the university consented to the taking of the material. Otherwise, you're inventing a dispute where none exists. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Conviction is not essential. Police can investigate a clear case of murder without ever identifying the murderer. The University is on record saying data was taken without consent. That strikes me as important. Wikispan (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The university says unequivocally that the material was stolen [7]. As the university is the owner of the material, it's the only party in a position to state that. No party has ever suggested, to the best of my knowledge, that the material was not stolen. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

From the sources citing this particular content about the emails, here is how it is described:

WashPo: hackers posted more than 1,000 pirated e-mails and a raft of other documents

Telegraph: Prof Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has been accused of manipulating climate change data following thousands of leaked documents that suggested academics delete sensitive emails to evade Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics.

And just for grins here are some news results from a google news search of emails+climate

1. Sydney Morning Herald: thousands of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were published on a Russian website. [8]
2. USA Today: the man whose hacked e-mails were at the heart of "Climategate" breaks his silence in an interview with New Scientist. [9]
3. Telegraph: who could have explained just why the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were so horribly damaging. [10]
4. Norfolk Eastern Daily Press: some of which focused on emails hacked from the University of East Anglia. [11]
5. Daily Mail: thousands of emails sent by scientists at the university’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were leaked and put online. [12]
6. New Zealand Herald: More than 1000 emails sent over 10 years by staff at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit were posted on Wikileaks after being accessed by a hacker. [13]
7. Guardian: controversy over the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia [14]
8. CNS News: “Climategate”--the leaking of emails revealing the apparent manipulation of data by some IPCC-linked scientists--and the IPCC’s retraction of an assertion in a key 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. [15]
9. Guardian: along with the damaging leak of "climategate" emails from the University of East Anglia [16]

Not one article I looked at had the word "stolen" or "theft" in relation to the emails. "Leaked" and "hacked" appeared roughly equally. Call it whatever it is called in the source you cite, and if the cited sources are inconsistent, use "leaked" or "hacked" or "hacked emails that were leaked". As an aside, please note the prolific use of "climategate" including a definition in CNS News.

Minor4th 21:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, as I've said repeatedly, "hacked" and "leaked" refers to the method by which they were stolen. The method of the theft does not make any difference to the fact of the theft. This has already been discussed at great length over on the CRU email controversy article - see FAQ #5 at the top of Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. I don't see any point in rehashing an old argument here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're parsing and POV pushing. Here's the problem, BLP issues aside (Yes, Mastcell, I do recognize that a specific allegation against a named individual is treated differently that a blanket accusation against a particular ideological group of unnamed persons) -- we strive for NPOV, but the words "stolen" and "theft" are supercharged with way too much negative connotation that it derails the point of the content, which is about Mann. Also, while "stolen" may be factually correct if you're applying a lay person's definition, those words also carry legal significance which has not been established or even charged. "Leaked" is also factually correct, and there is no dispute about the accuracy and truth of whether the emails were leaked. "Leaked" also does not carry any legal or criminal implications and it does not detract from the information that is about Mann -- the BLP of this article. Additionally, "Leaked" is used abundantly in the reliable sources while "stolen" appears nowhere, probably because it is too laden with innuendo and implication, which a good reliable source will want to avoid. Given that, there appears to be no rationale whatsoever to use "stolen" unless the intent is to 1. Take focus away from Mann, or 2. Imply that those who oppose Mann's POV are wrong and bad and deserving of more scrutiny than Mann. Either way, those are both POV in terms of editing Wikipedia. Therefore "Leaked" emails should be used. Minor4th 22:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec to ChrisO) But it's not up to you, or me, to decide that. We should use the most neutral word we can find in the best sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no such implication or POV. The fact that the material was stolen is undisputed. I note that you're not providing any source suggesting that the material was not stolen. You're inventing a dispute where none exists. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, then go round up all the reliable sources that use the words "stolen" and "theft" as opposed to "leaked" and no on will argue that Wikipedia should also describe the incident as such. Failing that, your insistence that "stolen" be used is most assuredly POV pushing. Minor4th 22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, several reliable sources reported on the possibility that it was an intentional leak by an insider seeking to expose the documents to the light of day. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is a good reason also not the use the word "hacked" since the access to the emails may not have been unauthorized. It could have been from one of the email authors or recipients. "Hacked" does appear in reliable sources though, so I really cannot object to it from a Wikipedia policy standpoint. Minor4th 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet again, I repeat: the method by which the files were stolen is a separate issue from whether the files were stolen. The method has been disputed. The fact of the theft has not. You people are confusing - I think purposefully - the method and the fact. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've posted links near the top of this, to a few of the many rounds this same argument went through at the main article, Climatic Research Unit email controversy. It's really pointless to go through this again here, when we have already arrived at a workable compromise there. Don't people have more constructive things to do with their WP volunteer time? Pete Tillman (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was not a participant and wasn't aware this had been hashed out. I'll take a look, but quick question -- was ChrisO involved in the prior discussion? Minor4th 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. And curious. ChrisO -- how about you drop it now, ok? Minor4th 22:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is just the sort of hairsplitting I must confess I enjoy, but it is unproductive when editing WP. We could say "apparently stolen," like some MSM reports, but then we would fuss over whether "apparently" means "obviously" or "seemingly." Another source says "reportedly stolen," so we could fuss over how reliable the reporting was: "Who says?" So I'm going to simply reference a RS that calls them "stolen." I've chosen the staid old WSJ that some of the POV-pushers want to throw out the window. After saying "leaked" in the subtitle and "hacked" in the lede, the fifth paragraph uses the dirty word. The sentence to which I refer is

In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K.

I'm refraining from rebutting some of the claims made here in the past 12 hours. Silence isn't consent, but in this case I think it's golden. --Yopienso (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Several edit conflicts later: Guess I won't--SV's done doctored it up, an' I ain't meddlin' no more. Here's the link. --Yopienso (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice SV has added a new wording for the 2nd para of the lede. It looks reasonable to me - I modified it slightly to clear up a possible confusion (it could be read as stating that Mann was a CRU climatologist, which he's not). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Much better -- thanks. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Freakshownerd

Has been indef'd as a sock of CoM, who is banned. It looks like some of his edits survive [17] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cuccinelli

C's stuff has now run into the sand [18] [19]. I think that means it can come out of the lede: it becomes just another NN failed attack William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it Cuccinelli intends to modify his request and proceed. But yes, unless and until that happens this is not going anywhere. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how Cuccinelli has a case now, because I thought the sources said that Mann's research didn't use any Virginia state funds. Cla68 (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the rejection. Feel free to tweak the wording. Next issue: in the great scheme of things, this is actually a rather minor matter: I don't think it had any real impact on Mann, because right from the start almost all commentators agreed this request was flawed; the main issue became Cuccinelli's reputation. so I think there is now a case for compressing this section, and moving much of it onto Cuccineli's page instead William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen your edits on this but I agree with the concept that the section should now be compressed to a single sentence or two and let the discussion about it remain in the main article. Minor4th 11:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)