Jump to content

Talk:Scott Pruitt

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:285:8000:a920:f988:c6ed:d94d:b52a (talk) at 02:22, 6 July 2018 (→Has the "Consensus" in Science Ever Been Wrong?: Soneone asked why we should accept climate change because scientific consensus has, in the past, been wrong, pointing to Galileo. I wrote a response explaining why it is illogical to dismiss evidence solely on the basis that we have been wrong before so we could be wrong again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Scott Pruitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scott Pruitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Has the "Consensus" in Science Ever Been Wrong?

For centuries, Euclidean geometry was the consensus, then non-Euclidean took over. Newton was once the monarch of physics, then came the views of Riemann and Einstein and everything changed. It was once the "consensus" that Galileo was wrong, but then he turned out to be right. As recently as 1900, Mendel's genetics was unknown in large lands such as Russia. Point being: It is just a Democrat talking point that the "consensus" of science is anthropogenic global warming, thus suggesting that any other viewpoint is doltish and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


—as a response— You are correct to note the consensus of science has changed. Numerous theories once believed to be descriptive have been turned on their head. However, this only occurred after evidence mounted and became unavoidably demonstrative of a newer scientific understanding. Therefore, at each point in time, scientific methodology means the consensus supports the best evidenced theory. Galileo’s case is a great example. Without telescopes, the geocentric model (earth at the center of the solar system) actually made more sense scientifically, as procession means that from the ground, the planets appear to move forward and backwards across the sky, as opposed to rising and setting (because the earths tilt, unknowable at the time, distorts our observation, it appeared that planets would stop, then move backwards). It was only when Galileos idea gained mounting, unambiguous and verifiable evidence that thinking changed.

So no, this is not a liberal talking point, because there is no concrete body of evidence with a unifying theory and verifiable data that combats the consensus. Yes, the model of climate change could in theory be wrong, but we only have the evidence we have.

If you suggest we should ignore the consensus because consensus can be misleading, why rely on science at all? We fly planes using our understanding of aerodynamics, but that could be wrong. Still, most evidence says we are correct, and planes can indeed fly.

A better question is why so many people refuse to acknowledge the consensus because even if all the evidence points to one conclusion, there may be something we don’t know. If that’s true, then the burden is on these people to first provide strong evidence, which can be verified by independent but identical experiments and by critical hypothesis probing for weak points. As no strong evidence has been produced, all evidence suggests the consensus is, if not correct, the best understanding we can have.

If we can’t even operate like this, we might as well smoke cigarettes and use lead in appliances and paint. After all, the consensus shows these cause cancer, but how can we be certain? My grandmother smoked until she was 90, and she is still alive, so by this logic, I can state that the claim that tobacco smoke causes cancer is just an effort to demonize smokers perpetuated by people who don’t like the smell

Climate change views in lead

According to WP:LEAD,

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"

Pruitt is primarily known as a climate change denier. When it became known that Trump – if elected President by the electoral college – intends to nominate him as Administrator of the EPA, reliable sources overwhelmingly and primarily described Pruitt as a climate change denier ("Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A., The New York Times, one of countless similar sources from both American and non-American reliable sources).

Pruitt himself has made no secret of his views on climate change, and these views are directly relevant to the position he might be appointed to. There is no doubt that under WP:LEAD, these views constitute a prominent controversy which needs to be mentioned in the lead, in addition to its coverage in the body of the article. I think it is sufficient to mention it very briefly (one short sentence) in the lead.

My proposal for the lead is a sentence like: "The New York Times has described him as a climate change denier." However, I'm very open to other ideas. --Tataral (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After more than two weeks with no objections, I conclude there is consensus for the above proposal. --Tataral (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re the New York Times: The original headline for the article you're citing said "ally of fossil fuel industry", then said "dissenter" then said "denialist" after pressure rom the tweetosphere. So all your citation shows is that newspaper headlines alone are not necessarily reliable sources, as other Wikipedia editors have sometimes observed on the WP:RSN noticeboard. Re your words "Pruitt himself has made no secret ..." -- if that's so, why can nobody produce a denialist quote from Pruitt, directly or indirectly? Despite kerfuffle about two sentences from an article that Pruitt and Luther Strange wrote in National Review (saying that other people have debates and disagreements), there's no corroboration. In a senate subcommittee hearing in May 2015, when (U.S. Senator) Sheldon Whitehouse asked about a climate-change matter, Pruitt avoided answering. USA Today says he's a climate change skeptic. New York Post says he's not a denier. A Wall Street Journal author refers to the denialist appellation as "lies". Luther Strange (Pruitt's co-author who ought to know) rebuts in National Review saying it's "slander". Brett J. Talley on cnn.com calls it character assassination". An author in Forbes calls it "unfair knee-jerk ink". And, before claiming consensus, wouldn't it be appropriate for you to ping the editor who reverted an earlier attempt to put something like this in the lead? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you acknowledge that they finally stopped using euphemisms and labelled him a denialist. Thanks for that. Staggers also calls him a denier: [2]. Ditto Slate: [3]. Ditto Sierra Club reported on NPR: [4]. But in the end what everyone knows full well is that Pruitt is precisely who the EPA is supposed to protect the environment from. And now it won't, because he will nobble it, because he is deeply in hock to Big Oil and because he denies the science that shows how badly his dreams of unfettered exploitation could damage the planet. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The former is why we include it, the latter is why it belongs in the lede. Witht hat job, Pruitt has the power to be the single most damaging person to the environment since Thomas Midgley Jr. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That he is what the EPA is supposed to protect from is opinion. That he will "hobble it" is a prediction and that he will do it on behalf of big oil is also an opinion. The summary is opinion. Remember, all of this is dependant on the notion that the whole climate change issue is how one side sees it. But I don't plan on getting into a big debate over this. I honestly pointed it out mainly because I normally see you being pretty balanced and that response was more your opinion about the subject rather than the issue at hand. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We know that he represents what the EPA is supposed to protect the environment from. We know that because he has sued the EPA and lost. So that's an opinion, but solidly based on known fact. We can be reasonably sure he will nobble it, and do so in favour of Big Oil, because that's pretty much what he's said he's going to do. I know it's fashionable to think that the incoming administration won't do most of the things they have promised, but I am not optimistic on that score. We should not fall into the trap of false balance: Pruitt in charge of the EPA cannot be better than bad, and has the potential to be catastrophic. He believes in "clean coal" FFS. That's like believing low tar cigarettes won't give you lung cancer.
Incidentally, my degree is in electrical engineering, so I'm pretty familiar with the subject of energy sources and their environmental impacts. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In you have not read Thomas Frank's book The Wrecking Crew (book), now might be a good time to do it. He explains (in 2008, I think) exactly what is going to happen in Washington in 2017. Carptrash (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The response from Guy appears to be irrelevant and the comment from Carptrash appears to be an advertisement. Tataral: do you intend to respond? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Climate skeptic is a euphemism for denier, that question has been settled long since. Continually agitating for the use of weasel words to obscure denialism is likely to be considered disruptive. Remember that there are discretionary sancitons on climate change articles, and as Pruitt is probably the world's most important climate change denier now, this article is unquestionably in scope for those restrictions. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed anything that I actually said on this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already addressed what you said. I even thanked you for acknowledging that the NYT finally stopped using euphemisms and weasel words. What more do you want? Guy (Help!) 00:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how speculation as to how the New York Times came to describe him – prominently and several times – as a climate change denier, is relevant. Of course there is a vast amount of other reliable sources which describe him in the same way. Just to name a couple among many:

I have no objection to also including the fact that he calls himself a sceptic, if that can be reliably sourced. --Tataral (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tataral: Any objection to also including the sources I listed contradicting the New York Times et al? And wouldn't it be appropriate for you to ping the editor who reverted your earlier attempt to put this in the lead? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be ok to include the opposite view, i.e. that he is not a denier or that he maintains he is a sceptic or something like that, but I don't think we need to include every source stating one or the other thing in the lead (there is room for a more detailed discussion below), it should be kept brief, something like "The New York Times has described him as a climate change denier; Pruitt considers himself a climate sceptic" (I'm not insisting on this particular wording). I think the mainstream view among third party sources is that he is a climate change denier, while the opposite view primarily merits inclusion in the lead because it is the belief held by himself, and not so much because of the couple of right-wing and less prominent sources which agree with him. --Tataral (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Up to a point. We can include any reliable independent source that says he is not a denier (note: that does not mean ones that use euphemisms like "skeptic" or "doubter" instead, the science is absolutely clear and denial of the science is denial, that horse bolted a long time ago). We should not include his personal belief that his denialism is something more benign, for the simple reason that, well, he would say that, wouldn't he? When people have belief s that are at odds with empirically demonstrated reality, we describe these beliefs form the perspective of reality. That's what we do with Truthers, Birthers, creationists and the like, and it's what we also do with climate change deniers. Sure they dispute it: deniers gonna deny. They deny, we don't. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tataral: I don't know what Pruitt's self-description is. The wording would be more like: Writers in the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, National Review, cnn.com, USA Today, and Forbes have said that calling Pruitt a denier is "lies", not true, "slander", "character assassination", not true, and "unfair knee-jerk ink", respectively. This would follow your proposed wording about what the New York Times and whatever other sources you like say. I am still dubious about having New York Times etc. in the lead, I'd like to know how many editors explicitly support that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a standard tactic of climate change denialists: to try to characterise the mainstream view as being restricted to certain sources. That list is long enough that the fact he is a denier can be stated in Wikipedia's voice. If any reliable independent source explicitly disputes that he is a climate change denier, we can talk about how to represent the two views in proportion, but as far as I can tell every respectable source that addresses the issue of Pruitt and denialism, is unanimous in identifying him as a denier. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that I've named are disputing the accusation for their own stated reasons, it does not matter what you think their reasoning should be. The accusers, meanwhile, often employ no reasoning at all, they just name-call. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he admits to be a denialist is signifciant, we should not pretend that his self-characterisation of this denialism as skepticism is a reflection of reality. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has been presented that Pruitt characterizes himself as either skeptic or denier. They're clear different things, but we can argue about that if Pruitt ever says anything. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I count two editors (the one who originally reverted, and me) who opposed Tataral's change to the lead. I count one editor (Guy|JzG) who apparently supports it. This is not consensus and not a large group. We could solicit more opinion on wp:blpn or via RfC: (a) should the accusation be in the lead?, (b) should the defences against the accusation be stated? But it's not a rush job, because I assume Mr Pruitt will have to answer questions about his opinions soon. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in. Pruitt plainly fits the definition of a person who denies the scientific consensus on AGW. It makes no difference if he describes himself as a denialist, denier, skeptic, or EPA reformist. What does matter is what sources say, and many of the most reputable sources are clear that he is a denier. Regarding the original proposal in this thread, we could also attribute that view to CNN, Newsweek, and Mother Jones. - MrX 20:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tataral, Guy, and MrX. (You forgot to count Tataral. Also, counting is not how this is done.) Most of the sources agree with the "denier" categorization, even those who say "skeptic" or "dissenter" instead, since those have degraded to euphemisms today. The Wall Street Journal does not count as a reliable source on climate science, it has always been part of the denial industry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He noted the well documented fact that the WSJ has promoted climate change denial for along time, this is effectively its editorial line on the subject. It ha s ahistory of publishing false denialist claims, so is not a reliable source for climate change. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So because it doesn't agree with your position or the side of the issue that you subscribe to, one of the largest and most respected news papers in the country is no longer a reliable source? I'd love for you to give me the link to that discussion at RSN. Could you provide it please? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, not because it does not agree with our position, but because it does not agree with the scientifically well-justified position and instead promotes crazy conspiracy theories inspired by market fundamentalist worldviews instead of by scientific data. The relevant page is Wikipedia:Fringe theories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:SuperCarnivore591 has added: "During his confirmation hearing to be EPA Administrator, he acknowledged that climate change is real and that humans have contributed to it." (Slight changes are ongoing.) It's less than I thought was justified, but at least we have something juxtaposing the New York Times's opinion, so I withdraw my suggestion re wp:blpn or an RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
His "views" ("claims" is more appropriate) are directly at odds with the scientific community and US scientific agencies. Calling him a "skeptic" gives credence to his unfounded conspirational theories. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hearings for Trump administration

New section would be needed. Wikipietime (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC) https://nyti.ms/2iwyhr7[reply]

emails source

here's a source for emails:

http://www.exposedbycmd.org/Scott-Pruitt-Missing-Emails

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a grammar error?

Should 'He said of global warming that "that debate is far from settled"' be changed to 'He said of global warming "that debate is far from settled"' Sleyece (talk) 14:19, 12, March 2016 (UTC)

Part about EPA ambitions

I made an edit to the lead that contained a part about Pruitt intending to "distmantle the EPA". It was reverted by user:Ihardlythinkso, reverted back by user:MrX, and then reverted again. The three sources I used to support it[1][2][3] used the words "dismantle", "abolish" and again "dismantle", respectively. Now the wording could be different, but there is little doubt in these sources that Pruitt is moving to and planning to abolish/dismantle it. It also seems prominent and relevant, no? As the current head of the EPA his handling is being evaluated by observers and critics, who note that current actions along with his history suggest an effort to get rid of the agency. Washington Post is reporting he dismissed half of a "key board’s" scientific advisers and Scientific American is citing censorship over climate change material. In any case, scientists and observers are criticizing his current efforts as being destructive to the EPA. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Three Ways New EPA Head Scott Pruitt Will Dismantle Environmental Protection, Gizmodo
  2. ^ Donald Trump 'taking steps to abolish Environmental Protection Agency', The Guardian
  3. ^ Scott Pruitt Is Seen Cutting the E.P.A. With a Scalpel, Not a Cleaver, NY Times
As I mentioned in my edit summary, I think your edit is a good one. Also, the relevant sections of the body should be expanded somewhat, for example with material about the contributions he received from the fossil fuel industry[5]. I think the last paragraph of the 'Environmental matters' section should be removed, or at least trimmed significantly. The Washington Times is poor source and the National Review content drifts a bit off topic.- MrX 10:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First you replaced a direct quote from Pruitt with a vaguer "at some point" statement and a claim that he "rejects the stance of the scientific community, including NASA" etc., based on an article in The Desert Sun which doesn't even mention NASA (and another that doesn't say that Pruitt mentioned NASA) -- but he didn't say he rejects anything, he said he doesn't know enough to agree. Then you destroyed Pruitt's statement entirely, and added a claim that "he intends to dismantle the EPA" citing gizmodo which, even if it was accepted as a good RS (which it doesn't look like to me), does not appear to have said Pruitt intends to dismantle the EPA, at least not in any statement that I can find. And the Guardian reference that you're adding now says Donald Trump not Scott Pruitt. I do not believe that your edits should stand. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Gulutzan, why don't you read all the sources I cite. Cherry picking specific sources out of the several that I clearly provide isn't going to prove your point. If I cite Gizmodo, it's because I'm also citing Time and The NY Times (I have no idea where your Desert Sun claim comes from). I have not added a single piece of information that wasn't sourced. And there was a false balance in stressing that at some point he blabbered something about climate change that happened to be right when 90% of news articles about him are about his steadfast and clear denial. Do you have any reputable source at all that disputes his climate change denial? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I said about Prinsgezinde's editing is correct and unrefuted; observers can confirm this by actually looking at the diffs and urls mentioned in the discussion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BRD on edits by user Marquardtika

I'm challenging the recent edits made by User:Marquardtika, specifically these and this one (the latter was a direct cut of User:HaeB's edit). There are several problems:

  • It was helpful to add the fact that he also challenges specifically "that human activities are a primary contributor to" climate change and "that carbon dioxide is the primary contributor" to climate change, instead of just rejecting climate change. Specifics are a good thing here, as merely saying he rejects it makes it seem like some sort of ideological stance instead of the fringe view that it really is.
  • Sources are apparently needed in the lead because people will keep trying to change it. This way we can stick to the sources.
  • The latter, "more general representation of lawsuits" edit created a false balance where there was no need for one. The result was merely restating that he sued the EPA. The clue, and what sources are saying, is that he did it to challenge their environmental protection efforts. That he did it with the help of the fossil fuel industry is also relevant if sources state it.

Per WP:BRD, I'm reverting it for now and keeping it open for discussion. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "Pruitt rejects the scientific consensus that human activities are a primary contributor to climate change...and that carbon dioxide is the primary contributor" to "Pruitt rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" because I thought it was a pithier way of representing the same information. As far as I know, the scientific consensus on climate change is that human activities and carbon dioxide both impact the climate, so the impact of both of those elements is encompassed within the scientific consensus. It's not that big of a deal, but I thought for the lede we should summarize the big point--he rejects the consensus. Perhaps details about what the consensus is can be further detailed in the body. As for the second part, about EPA lawsuits and fossil fuel contributions, I think it's WP:UNDUE as written in the WP:LEDE. As far as I can tell, the only content we have in the article body about this is "Pruitt has been successful in raising campaign contributions from the energy industry, helping him to become chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association. The oil and gas industry has contributed over $300,000 to Pruitt's campaigns over the years." We have much more content about his lawsuits against the EPA, so I thought that should be mentioned in the lede so as to summarize the largest components of the article. As written, I think we're giving too much emphasis in the lede to these fossil fuel industry contributions, at least according to the content we currently have in the body. Marquardtika (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Prinsgezinde: did you have a response to my thoughts above? Marquardtika (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Marquardtika, I've been extremely busy irl. Carbon dioxide is also by far most commonly caused by human activities, so that falls into the same category. It's just a small inclusion but specifying what someone rejects about the consensus is usually noted in sources. It gives some more background to a view that many of them seem to adopt without fully understanding it. The fossil industry contributions wouldn't be much of a thing on their own, but they're connected with the rest of the paragraph. The thing was that whenever there was talk about lawsuits, there was also a mention of how it fit in with his views. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. I hope these edits are clarifying. I tried to summarize per WP:LEAD while retaining the main points. Marquardtika (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Tag and other recent issues

I've added a NPOV tag to this article and would suggest a roll back of a massive number of edits made recently by a sock editor. The issues are somewhat related. The sock editor added a large number of references that while verifiable many not present a complete picture of any particular situation. A rapid fire of quotes from many articles isn't encyclopedic and doesn't really tell a complete story. Even worse it can be suggestive in a way that creates false impressions.

One example of this is this one line paragraph sourced to CNN ''On May 1, 2017, Pruitt met with Tom Collier, CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership, and shortly after announced the EPA would withdraw plans to protect Alaska's Bristol Bay from the proposed Pebble Mine.[112] The content is verifiable to CNN though the "withdraw plans" claim is very questionable. Reason.com dug into that story a bit and noted that the telling (which is currently Wikipedia's) is very questionable[[6]]. Per Reason the EPA didn't withdraw rather it reversed an earlier decision that simply refused to allow the company to submit an environmental impact study. The EPA was still able to reject the project but now the company would be allowed to actually submit a plan. Anyway, Reason goes into quite a bit of detail. My concern is that a great many of the recently added content follows the pattern above. One or two damning sentences sourced from an article (no telling the article author would agree with the choice of sentences). It would be better if these stories were combined to create a more comprehensive narrative. The article can't be considered neutral so long as we don't verify there isn't are other sides to the various stories included.

IOW, The socker's usual MO was to overload an article with sources from a particular POV, not to add items which were obviously false. Weeding back is probably in order, if he's done the same thing here.
Disclaimer: haven't edited or even read this article before now, my experience is based on his actions in what should be more factually based subjects. Anmccaff (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans:, ECarlisle's account has been blocked as being a sock. The correct thing to do is remove sock edits from an article. Sorry your's were included I will try to give it a second pass with more care. Springee (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the user is a sock, then yes it's sensible to thoroughly review the content added. As for the CNN story and Reason's response, that's a Reason piece by John Stossel. John Stossel rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, and is in general an untrustworthy source on a whole slew of issues. He's not a RS on climate change, nor any issue, whereas CNN is a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ECarlisle was found to be a sock [[7]]. Reason is a reliable source and the claims made in the article are not related to climate change. Unless we can show that the claim are wrong, ie, that the EPA previously blocked the mining company from submitting an impact study and that the mine location was ~100 miles from the bay (not next to) I'm not sure we can dismiss it so quickly. More importantly, it makes the point that there is a second side to this story. I suspect that is true of many of the other quote and run examples offered by the blocked sock editor. Springee (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stossel is someone who is known to fabulate on topics related to climate change and the environment. He's not a RS by any stretch of the imagination. If the CNN story is wrong or the text is slanted, it should be removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the removal but that is just one example. There are many similar cases that haven't been shown to be complete or impartial telling of the events. That is what concerns me about the majority of this article. Springee (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Springee, if your plan is to revert the large pile of ECarlisle edits again but allow for preserving the few changes interspersed among those edits, then thanks for taking on a necessary cleanup job, and (quoting WP:BLP) "If it [i.e. material in the pile] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that edits by block-evading accounts should be removed. This seems to be what happened here--sock edits by a banned/blocked editor. We shouldn't reward block evading editors by keeping their edits. The only intervening edit that wasn't vandalism reversion looked to me to be this one, which I restored. If I missed any intervening edits by other editors, please add them back. Marquardtika (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Marquardtika. That will largely address my NPOV concerns. I'll remove the Bristol bay one liner as well. I'm not sure some of the other one line statements in the same section shouldn't be reviewed but I'm not going to leave the NPOV tag up for that. Springee (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, whatever rollbacks were made are now back. The entire first section is blatantly, even flagrantly NPOV. The content is not encyclopedic at all. I strongly suggest a serious edit on the scale of a complete overhaul, eliminating the obvious defamation, regardless of how many cited references the mudslingers can dig up, followed by a lock. Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a message forum. The articles need to be clean and factual, not an indictment.Clepsydrae (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the phrase "Scientific Consensus"

Scientific consensus in of itself does not constitute scientific fact. Scientific consensus also concluded that the earth was flat, that everything revolved around Earth, etc... All of those were lauded as scientific fact. Consensus does not mean that Pruitt is wrong...nor does it prove that he is right. There are other scientists that do not agree with Global warming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.110 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a scientist, I wholeheartedly concur. Furthermore, Pruitt wasn't hired to be a scientist, but rather, an administrator, commensurate with his position Clepsydrae (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? "that the earth was flat, that everything revolved around Earth, etc..." couldn't have been "lauded as scientific fact" because they predate modern concepts of science, or even the word "scientific". Ask any natural philosopher. As a "scientist", you're evidently promoting that tiny fringe that clings to global warming denial, don't give it undue weight. . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Reviewing the EPA's sixteen past administrators from William Ruckelshaus to Scott Pruitt, I observe only four of them (25%) held any Bachelor or Masters degree in Science, and only one was actually a working scientist. Eleven of them were pure administrators, eight of who were lawyers. Again, the position requires an administrator.Clepsydrae (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find this article libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.110 (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While scientific consensus does not consist fact (facts are what form consensus), when over 99% of the scientists working in the field agree (as is the case for anthropogenic global climate change; see https://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_consensus_on_anthropogenic_global_warming), then it is the obligation of the person who contests that consensus to provide proof to the contrary. Until then, the consensus is the closest science gets to calling something true. Additionally, referring "other scientists" in regard to Scott Pruitt is misleading. He is not a scientist. He is a lawyer.Joalkap (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your information is incorrect. Not only is your "over 99%" figure wrong, regardless of whatever sources you claim, the more common "97% of climate scientists agree..." is also incorrect. Not only was it taken out of context, stumbling into the fallacy of equivocation, as clearly evidenced by John Kerry's gross misstatement, but the source was from a political activist and his blog, Skeptical_Science. His claim was later found to be false, with less than 2% of papers actually making that claim, not 97 percent, as John Cook claimed. For more information on how the 97% claim has no basis in science at all, see 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?.Clepsydrae (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snooganssnoogans is correct in reverting Cap'n Tightpants removal of the word "falsely" from the sentence "Pruitt has also falsely asserted that there is no scientific consensus on climate change." [Italics mine]. There is a demonstrated and verified consensus (see citation in the previous paragraph) while Pruitt has indeed asserted that there is none. This makes the sentence true whether or not you believe in climate change or whether you believe the consensus itself is correct.Joalkap (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Over No-Bid Contract to GOP Opposition Research Firm

Substituting the narrative promoted by Definers Public Affairs, the group accused in the lawsuit, for reporting by the New York Times and Politico, to mention two of the sources, is not acceptable. Among other things it glosses over Pruitt's ties to the group and the organization's role in investigating EPA employees who it believed were critical of the Trump administration. Nor did Definers Public Affairs simply withdraw as they stated. The EPA cancelled the contract in response to the controversy.Joalkap (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reckon that this content is "the narrative promoted by Definers Public Affairs"? It's content imported from the Wikipedia article Definers Public Affairs, but it looks more neutral to me than what was here. It is definitely better sourced than the press release that was previously in the article. There are a number of other issues with the content you added, like not providing a link to Definers Public Affairs or America Rising (not "Americas Rising"), writing "the Pruitt" rather than Pruitt, and capitalizing all of the words in a section header. The only link you provided that works is to a press release by Environmental Working Group. The Mother Jones, New York Times, and Politico links that you provided all point to "page not found" landing pages. Marquardtika (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Until you reverted it, the links worked just fine. I tried them all again this morning. The fact that a statement appeared elsewhere in Wikipedia does not make it correct or impartial. It is at best a tertiary source by an unknown party. That is not "better sourcing". The NY Times and Politico sourcing is secondary and attributable. Further your summary artfully whitewashes Definers Public Affairs' role in the subterfuge. Thank you for correcting my typos. I would be happy to include those corrections if you would stop reverting my text. Joalkap (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia Neutrality and Photos

Quote: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects."

I'm curious as to how Wikipedia's editors try to make Wikipedia's proclamation of neutrality jibe with the three (count 'em, three) photographs of protest signs strategically placed throughout this article.

The first comes immediately under the subject's bio box. The sign reads: REMOVE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS FROM OUR GOVERNMENT … NO PRUITT. You can't actually see any protestors; the photo's been tightly cropped to show only the message. The caption tells readers: "Pruitt represented as a climate change denier." This image appears just below Mr. Pruitt's college and law school credentials.

Next, about halfway down the article, we have a smiling woman holding up another sign. This sign reads: NO PRUITT – SAVE THE EPA. The caption helpfully reads: "Resist Trump Rally, NYC, 2017."

Finally, at the end of the article, we get a shot of the back of someone's head as they hold up yet another sign: STOP PRUITT. The caption informatively explains: "Stop Pruitt sign." This image is positioned next to Mr. Pruitt's electoral history, alongside the vote tallies for his elections as Oklahoma Attorney General. The photo is not from Oklahoma, nor is it from those elections.

Turns out, as it happens, that two of these three photos were taken in the same place, at the same time (within an hour of each other), by the same photographer: "Resist Trump Rally at Chuck Schumer's NYC Office on February 2, 2017." The third photo was taken less than two weeks later, in Washington, D.C., just before Mr. Pruitt was confirmed by the Senate to his current position.

In other words, all three illustrate the same topic: February 2017 protests against Mr. Pruitt's Senate confirmation. Well, the photographs don't actually capture the protests as such, since the viewer can't tell much from them or learn much from those vague and redundant captions. Mostly, all three photos present Wikipedia's readers with anti-Pruitt messages, which is rather, one gathers, the intent. Any one photo would serve to illustrate the article's section describing Mr. Pruitt's confirmation as head of the EPA. Three close-up photos (all taken in February 2017) showing protest signs, however, merely serve to espouse and reinforce the POV of the signs themselves — in a way that is not "fair," not "proportionate," and certainly not indicative of a Neutral Point of View. NicholasNotabene (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the pictures were added on February 4 by Syced, whom I hereby ping. I agree that they shouldn't be added. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we had more pictures about Pruitt on Commons, we would add them. Pruitt's birthday party, an advertisement for a Pruitt campaign, the building in which Pruitt's office is, anything really. Commons needs more diverse pictures, and I am working hard on it by developing the Commons Android app. I also spend a a lot of time adding pictures to random articles. The Pruitt article contains 5 portraits of Pruitt, so having 3 demonstration pictures is not shocking. The article is very long so I think it could use more pictures in the fifth section. I just added two more, showing Pruitt at political events. Cheers! Syced (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Largent

Of course he was replaced as a U.S. Representative by a special election, not a gubernatorial appointment. This is hardly remarkable as the Constitution provides for gubernatorial appointment only of Senators, not Representatives. 72.106.148.2 (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-factual information regarding airlines

The long list of controversies contains some items that are biased or simply not true. I believe it is important that understandably critical claims about a public official's behavior should be substantantiated with unbiased and factual information only. As an example, there is a text saying "During one trip, Pruitt used Emirates, a costly Dubai-based airline with a reputation for luxurious service." Fact is that Emirates is an airline with relatively low rates for intercontinental flights, so the term 'costly' is not factual. The statement that they 'have a reputation for luxurious services' is irrelevant, because it's certainly not unethical to choose an airline based on its service record. I propose to update this and other non-factual information, thereby increasing the neutral informational value of the description of controversies.

Thank you for noticing! You are right. The non-factual information has been removed. Cheers! Syced (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Create new article

Was just reading the article after seeing a news story and was surprised by the tit for tat controversy news quote section that is overwhelming the article and on encyclopedic in there present form. Anyone else think we should sum up the news reports quotes and move most to a new article?--Moxy (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined not to atomize content or go with a split unless absolutely necessary. And I don't think we've reached that point yet. Neutralitytalk 22:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Forks are the absolute worst, and should be avoided unless absolutely definitely necessary. I think text can be reasonably trimmed and streamlined here and there in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose splitting the article. Activist (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content in this article, particularly the "Controversies" section (which also violates WP:CSECTION), should either be trimmed and made more concise, or it should be merged into other portions of the article. I oppose creating new articles for these controversies. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the header of WP:CSECTION:
This page is an essay.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
--Nbauman (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against a split. There is a lot of copy related to controversy because he's been so controversial. Perhaps it can be made more precise but I would not like to see much trimming. IMO it's important that we don't let the sheer number of controversial actions by the present administration numb us into thinking that these incidents are not important enough to document. Gandydancer (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A very controversial figure must have a consequent "Controversy" section. The "Controversy" section currently is less than 30% of the article (4313 characters out of 145168), which is reasonable. Certainly no need to create a separate article. Syced (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As there is a near-total consensus against splitting, I'll remove the notice. Activist (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-EPA ethics problems

This man is killing me. I can't keep up with these scandals (at least note the pre-EPA days). Can someone incorporate this stunning but complicated NYT piece into the article?:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/us/politics/scott-pruitt-oklahoma-epa.html Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More on pre-EPA corruption: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/us/scott-pruitt-lobbyist-house.html Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC):[reply]
Actually when I saw that latest bit I thought of you right away (you said awhile back something like "this never stops!). I'm going to put the info re mileage regs in the environmental article right now. Gandydancer (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please help a brother out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More pre-EPA corruption: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/03/politics/epa-scott-pruitt-campaign-reimbursements/index.html?sr=twCNNp050318epa-scott-pruitt-campaign-reimbursements0545PMStory&CNNPolitics=Tw. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
user:Snooganssnoogans If you have such strong personal views about this article subject (from one of your edit summaries this man is so scandal-ridden, then perhaps it would be better if you did not edit the article, per COI. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The man is scandal-ridden by the definition of the term and has been described as such on a weekly basis by RS since the start of 2018 and on daily basis in the last two months. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the past you've been criticized for adding negative material exclusively to articles about right wing politicians. If such claims are so prevalent then they'll surely be added. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are not a forum, but expressing opinions while discussing sources is not forbidden either. "per COI" <- Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. "criticized for adding negative material exclusively to X" <- Is there a Wikipedia rule against this? "If such claims are so prevalent then they'll surely be added" <- Very true. Cheers! Syced (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is nothing in the rules that only those who don't care are allowed to edit. There is nothing wrong with disliking right-wingers. (Or liking them.) When reliable sources start to find positive things to say about this... hrrmm... person, you are free to add them. Until Snooganssnoogans' actions lead to an article at odds with what the reliable sources say, your attempt to shoo away editors who disagree with you is unjustified. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See here. Editors are free to edit wherever they want. My opinions have no bearing. Thanks. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EPA ethics problems

This article is getting so unwieldy in the amount and depth of scandals that I can't identify where to put this particular lie of Pruitt's into the article: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/14/politics/epa-pruitt-security-detail/index.html. I need help, so I'm creating this talk which is separate from his pre-EPA ethics problems. I thought I could handle his EPA ethics problems, but it's just too much of a headache. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently have objected to splits because they are never very well-read compared to the main article and are sometimes, IMO, used to hide away the naughty things that a corporation did--or at least it used to be corporations but with this administration it seems to have come down to individuals more frequently as well. I can see a split of Pruitt's EPA admin info as long as this article included only a very short section. What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I only support splits when articles become insanely long and when there is no reasonable way to trim content. I don't think this article is there yet. I get the feeling that it's easily possible to trim content and make it more concise. For example, doesn't the 'Lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency' section duplicate content from his Okie AG tenure? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along with whatever you think. I've experience at both the BP spill and the Ebola epidemic articles and I know it can be a difficult path to take. It was needed in the case of BP and only made a mess of the Ebola article. The problem is that people just do not take care of the splits but rather just keep putting new stuff in the main article. I'll certainly support any trimming that you do. Gandydancer (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if anything could be moved to a History of the Environmental Protection Agency article (that page currently just redirects to the EPA article). Or if any could be moved to the Trump environmental policy article. Seems like in any case there will be a lot of overlap. Neutralitytalk 21:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Politico summary of Pruitt scandals.[8] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Politico piece on Pruitt's virtually nonexistent record of emails[9]. Should be added to the secrecy and transparency section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More on the Pruitt-Hart relationship.[10] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PFOS and PFOA study publication withheld

First, I want to say that I'm very, very sorry if I have stepped on a newbie's toes with my edit. It needed a lot of fixing and what I did was to use the edit that I'd made at the Trump environmental article. It is long, perhaps, for this article. I would not feel at all bad if someone were to cut it. On the other hand, this news seems to be well-publicized and it may become even more notable...and it may be something that brings a lot of readers to this article. Time will tell... Gandydancer (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well...it seems that some Republicans have constituents living in chemical-ized parts of this great land of ours and are willing to speak out. Would there be any concern if I were to delete info re this issue added yesterday under the "Rules" heading and include it all under this heading? I did transfer some of it, though I am unable to reach the site that was used. Also, for some odd reason I am unable to correct the Brian Fitzpatrick link. What am I doing wrong??? Gandydancer (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no objection so I will delete the section I mentioned. Gandydancer (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

=

Request for page protection from new users

This article was vandalized twice within minutes by a new user/graffiti artist, Areop-Enap. The first vulgarism was removed by a bot, the second BLP violation, terming the article's subject a "scumbag" was removed by an alert editor, KNHaw. I think semi-protection for a week might be helpful. The new editor should be blocked but I expect the vandalism might persist with the vandal using a new User name as a work-around. Activist (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KNHaw (talk · contribs) FYI. Thanks! Activist (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the FYI, Activist - I appreciate it! As JTP said, the process in place is adequate. This article gets a moderate amount of regular vandalism, but it gets controlled through the usual patrols. If it sees an uptick we can get the ball rolling on temporary protection and then go onwards from there. Otherwise, just chalk it up to the regular cost of maintenance of Wikipedia.
Also, the vandal in question has just gotten a final warning for an edit on another page. We'll see where they go from there, but if they're intent on vandalism they'll inevitably re-offend and get banned. That's the usual pattern. Otherwise, they'll have learned their lesson and we can continue to Wikipedia:Assume good faith for them.
--KNHaw (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting development...

"Why Hasn’t Trump Fired Scott Pruitt? Because Pruitt Can Fire Robert Mueller" [11] Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation

He resigned today July 5, 2018 A mirrer (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Please note his resignation becomes effective tomorrow according to his resignation letter to Pres. Trump. Zingarese (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore the opening paragraph should not say "served". He is still serving until tomorrow. Please revert that change. 142.167.242.182 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Zingarese (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to rewrite the article concisely

Pruitt's resignation creates a degree of closure, which will make it easier to summarize and write more concisely. There's going to be a lot of really well-written news articles coming out that summarize Pruitt's tenure and all the scandals. It's important to capture the contemporary assessments of his whole tenure for the long-term encyclopedic value. These summaries may also help us to trim and write more concisely. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Pruitt&oldid=849037547"