Talk:Michael E. Mann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 


Climategate?[edit]

It's more helpful to the reader who hasn't followed the years of wrangling on the name of the event and article to include ('Climategate') after the subtitle, CRU email controversy, which is a name wholly invented by Wikipedians who personally object to the common name, Climategate. Five years ago Jimbo Wales called the contrived name "a pretty silly title that no one uses." The full article includes (also known as "Climategate") immediately after the contrived title and eight more times in the body of the article, plus once in the infobox as an aka; "Climategate" is ubiquitous in the RSs. Burying the common name in the paragraph isn't helpful, although permitting it there is a helpful step forward.

I propose including ('Climategate') after the subtitle, CRU email controversy. YoPienso (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's okay, the name was a propaganda spin anyway, see WP:NOT. If you want to change something add the note in the front sentence on that section. Nvm, it is in the lede of that section. prokaryotes (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Please clarify. Do you mean the section is OK without adding ('Climategate')?
NB: Calling the event by its common name in no way "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind."
The name began as a smear, but is now the common name. Even Mann uses it. YoPienso (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yopienso, the term is not very common in reliable sources. Look at Google News for instance, most article who use the term are not considered reliable, or there are articles which point out the lackings of the term. The name is mentioned, it is explained. That's it.prokaryotes (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Why would we use a news reporters catchy jargon phrase in a header? Are we implying the "email controversy" was as significant as the original "watergate"? Yes newspapers and TV news folk like a catchy phrase: "deflategate" ... "whatevergate"; but a section header is not a newspaper headline - designed to grab viewers' attention and sell papers or attract more viewers to a newscast. A mention of the word in the body of the article/section should be adequate. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Vsmith (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Direct responses facilitate clear communication.
Prokaryotes, your indirect response indicates that in your opinion the subtitle is OK without adding 'Climategate' in parentheses. You are mistaken that the term is not very common in RSs. See here.
Vsmith, we would use the catchy jargon phrase because nearly every publication does. We imply nothing about Climategate's significance compared to Watergate; we merely follow the common usage. The section header should be meaningful to the average reader. This is absolutely supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is typically compared and contrasted to Encyclopedia Britannica, which has an update titled "Climategate."
Please provide a factual, policy-based reason why we should not add 'Climategate' in parentheses in the section header. YoPienso (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Note that Kerry Emanuel of MIT unhesitatingly called the event "Climategate." YoPienso (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Not a RS, but a severe critic of skeptics, RationalWiki says: ""Climategate" is the most common term that the media and blogosphere gave to a relatively effective manufactroversy . . ."

I propose we move this discussion to Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. — TPX 14:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

YoPienso, you link to 5 year old or older lists of news article. When you look at Google News, the term is no longer used, unless you consider unreliable sources. Leave it as it is, because it is already explained. For a rule see WP:Undue. prokaryotes (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Notice that i do not object to rename the other page TPX, Yopienso prokaryotes (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Usually when the term "Climategate" appeared in mainstream sources, it was in "scare quotes." It was not a scandal, but a manufactured controversy and the actions of writers "exposing" the story is far more important than the actual story itself. TFD (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@TPX: No, this discussion has to do with editing this article, not the CRU-ec article.
@Prokaryotes: Thanks for your clear answer. Climategate is no longer news; it's history. WP preserves all notable history. While Climategate was notable, it was not of wide interest outside the environmentalist and denialist communities. There is no need to find current news on an old(ish) topic. But if you insist, on its 5th anniversary, Kevin Grandia wrote about Climategate in the HuffPo. The Guardian harked back to it in March, 2015.
Where is it already explained?
Giving the common name of the event does not violate WP:UNDUE. Michael E. Mann himself boldly uses the term; how silly to say it's undue in his BLP!
@TFD: I don't see what your comment has to do with my proposal. I'm not discussing the event itself, but requesting that we put the common name in parentheses after the made-up Wikipedia name in a subtitle so readers of the BLP will know what the heck the section is about. YoPienso (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
YoPienso, you missing the point, my argument refers to the current mention of Climategate in this very article. Thus, I don't understand why you want to add it another time. prokaryotes (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! By "already" I thought you meant "previously in the article," but you meant "presently." I think the subtitle is the most important place to identify the name with the common one, but typically a [sub]title's contents/meaning is developed in the body. Therefore, it's not overkill to have it in both the subtitle and the body. Having it in the body is better than not having it at all, though, and may be a necessary compromise of our differing views. But if we can't agree to twice, I would opt for once in the subtitle since most readers look at subtitles before or instead of the body. Otherwise, we have a subtitle unintelligible to all but the initiated.
Obviously, if the CRU-ec article were redirected to Climategate, it would be wrong to retain the present subtitle. But the title of that article doesn't bother me since both Google and the internal WP search tool take readers to the correct article with the manufactured title. In fact, I rather favor keeping that title since it gives the reader a heads-up that the article is skewed.
My objective is to improve WP to serve our readers better. YoPienso (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
YoPienso your first source refers to the "so-called "Climategate" incident." As I wrote above, usually when the term "Climategate" appeared in mainstream sources, it was in "scare quotes." It was not a scandal, but a manufactured controversy and the actions of writers "exposing" the story is far more important than the actual story itself. TFD (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yopienso make a voting then - including change x to y suggestion? prokaryotes (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Climategate is in the article; and this isn't the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article to which the old newsjargon redirects. There is no need for the climategate jargon to be in any header. Vsmith (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@TFD, So what? Grandia introduces the topic as the so-called "Climategate" incident, then uses Climategate without scare quotes 13 more times. But even if he used the scare quotes all 14 times, no matter--the point is, he uses the term. Please notice my suggestion uses scare quotes. It is precisely because the event is so-called that adding ('Climategate') clarifies the subtitle. We agree we want the clearest possible article, ¿no? Adding the common name IN PARENTHESES AND SCARE QUOTES clarifies the WP jargon. Adding, not replacing. Why are you repeating that it wasn't a scandal but a m. c.? What does that have to do with my proposal? Nothing!
@Prokaryotes, No need for a vote; we're having a discussion. In any case, "votes" (requests for comments) aren't assessed by the number of editors who support or reject a proposal, but by the strength of their arguments. None of you have offered factual, policy-based arguments for rejecting my proposal.
@Vsmith, My point isn't to make sure by golly to shoehorn the term "Climategate" into this article. My point is to make the article intelligible to the average reader by adding in parentheses and scare quotes the common name that clarifies the obscure WP jargon.
To all editors: Here's my original proposal:
I propose including ('Climategate') after the subtitle, CRU email controversy.
Note that user Sodium Fluoride had done so (w/o scare quote) at 04:07, 24 August 2015‎ with the edit summary Use common terminology and was reverted several hours later by TPX. I thought and think S.F.'s addition improved the article. YoPienso (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I find it unencyclopedic because it gives the impression that a manufactured controversy was in fact a scandal. Bear in mind too that this is a BLP, and we should be cautious by avoiding giving credence to allegations we know are false. TFD (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for a clear answer. I appreciate seeing where you're coming from.
  • Do you think the digital yearbook of the Encyclopedia Britannica is less encyclopedic than Wikipedia? It's written by Martin Fisher, editor of Oryx, a Cambridge journal of conservation.
  • Do you realize that some RSs (such as the EB yearbook) do call Climategate a scandal?
  • Do you realize that by some definitions (e.g, "malicious or defamatory gossip) you would call the CRU-ec a scandal?
  • Do you realize that Mann, the subject of this BLP, titled Chap. 14 of his book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars "Climategate: The Real Story"? He used the term dozens of times, mostly without scare quotes.
  • In no way does adding the clarifying common name give credence to allegations we know are false. The narrative is clear.
  • I don't think Mann would object to the clarification in his BLP, and I do think that per policy (WP:NDESC and WP:NEWSORG) we should add ('Climategate') per "non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title."
  • I'm sure you realize that I think the your fear of attaching scandal to Mann's reputation by calling the controversy--in scare quotes and parentheses, solely for clarification--by it's common name is unfounded.
Thanks for your care for Dr. Mann and for your courtesy as a WP editor. YoPienso (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yopienso, asking us rhetoric questions isn't really a great way to communicate something, i personally tend to ignore these. The article about CG is called CRU email controversy, hence why we use here CRU email controversy as well.prokaryotes (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
They're not rhetorical. YoPienso (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, i don't understand why you asking these questions. Notice also this is a BLP article, and a section title with Gate init is very sensational.There are now several answers to your request.prokaryotes (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I asked to find out your understanding/opinion of those points.
  • If you think the EB yearbook is less encyclopedic than WP, I disagree since the EB is the standard general reference encyclopedia. If you think it is equally or more encyclopedic, then your argument that using the term "Climategate" is unencyclopedic fails.
  • If you realize some RSs call Climategate a scandal, you will be willing to follow the sources.
  • If you realize "scandal" may have different connotations for some people you won't so strongly insist on avoiding its use.
  • If you realize Mann himself liberally uses the term you won't feel it's an affront to him if we use it as a clarifier and not a smear.
Those were all the questions. I don't see the several answers to my request. But you're under no obligation to comply.
One more point (not a question): The article about CG is called CRU email controversy, but is clarified as (also known as "Climategate"). Not in the title, but at the beginning of the very first sentence and in the infobox.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I stand by all I've stricken above and believe it's the best interpretation of policy and the best way to write the article. Nonetheless, I've looked at Dan Rather's BLP for "Rathergate," Janet Jackson's for "nipplegate," Rupert Murdoch's for "MurdochGate," and Sarah Palin's for "troopergate" and found consistent avoidance of such usage. Backing away now. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal Controversy[edit]

This legal controversy in which Mann thratens to sue the makes and distributors of a video is missing from this page. Msbaggott (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/noel-sheppard/2010/04/20/climategates-mann-demands-hide-decline-video-be-removed-youtube

I can't find any reliable source for this. Google only shows me right-wing crackpot sites talking about it. Do you have a better source? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be an ongoing issue, but it's been covered by foxnews [1]. I realize that some might argue that foxnews is in fact a "right-wing crackpot site", but this article seems quite factual and evenhanded. VirgilGilmour (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
There are five links in the article, all of them giving climate change deniers their say. No link to a pro-science site. A perfect example for the deniers' echo chamber, where those people quote only each other and thus multiply the lies. The e-mail theft is also narrated from the anti-science viewpoint: "a "trick" that Mann had used to get the graph to portray what global warming scientists wanted to see" is the spin the denial industry put on the story. The site may "seem" evenhanded if you don't know much about the climate change controversy and/or the relation between the mails themselves on one hand and what the thieves and fences make of them on the other, but it isn't. Since the article is also six years old, probably nothing came from the legal threat. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand your opinion of the article, and perhaps I was wrong in calling it evenhanded, but that was tangential to the point I was making. I was simply responding to your request for a better source than "right-wing crackpot sites." Whether you think the article was "fair and balanced" or not, it's certainly a reputable enough source to cite in this article (and it would be perfectly fair to include reference to "a pro-science site."--VirgilGilmour (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I've just re-read the article, and you haven't described it accurately. There are four links in the article (not five). Not all of them were "giving climate change deniers their say." The first is a link to the youtube video the article is about. The second is a link the the organization represented by someone quoted in the article. The third links to an image of the letter Mann's lawyers sent (the link is dead but the archive can be seen here [2]. The fourth is to a whimsical letter from "Minnesotans for Global Warming," whose three members "jokingly think that Minnesota could use a little more heat." This article isn't even about whether climate change is real, so it's obviously not an "example of the deniers' echo chamber, where those people quote only each other." Moreover, they did reach out to Mann and his lawyers, but their only response was "we don't comment on any pending legal matters for clients."
Bottom line: the only fact the original poster wanted to include was that Mann had threatened to sue the makers of a video about him. This article (and the photo of his attorney's letter) clearly demonstrate that he did, and all this discussion of whether it's evenhanded or anti-science is completely irrelevant to that fact. If there's a "pro-science site" that disputes that Mann made such threats, by all means include a reference to it.--VirgilGilmour (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
"it's certainly a reputable enough source to cite in this article" - Formally, yes. But that the rules allow it is not reason enough to include it. After all, we cannot use all sources the rules allow because that wuld blow all the articles out of proportion. We have to select, and quality and importance are the main criteria. Given its obvious spin-doctoring and the lack of any antidote link about the specific subject, it would be unwise to include it. This was six years ago, and since there is no better source than this propaganda piece, it is clearly not very important.
"The second is a link the the organization represented by someone quoted in the article." - No. You missed the Rush Limbaugh link, which is the second. It does not work anymore, but knowing Limbaugh, this is obviously more of the same.
"This article isn't even about whether climate change is real" - You seem not to know what climate change denial is all about. Deniers only want nothing done about climate change. They do not care what the reason for doing nothing is. Sometimes they say climate change is not happening, sometimes they say it has been happening all the time, sometimes they say humans didn't do it, sometimes they say it is too late anyway, sometimes they say it has positive consequences. "Minnesota could use a little more heat" is well within their rhetoric arsenal. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Noisy data revert[edit]

My link to Noisy data was reverted with the comment "I saw that article, but I don't think it's what meant by the term here. He *is* dealing with noise that's way stronger than signal, but the way I understand it this really has more to do with freq. content, filtering, identification of outliers, etc.."

So there are two types of noisy data and we should also have an article on the type Mann is analyzing? His noisy data are not noisy in the sense of signal-to noise ratio? I don't get it. Wouldn't the link be helpful to readers who have no idea what "noisy data" means? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael E. Mann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)