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.

Inconsistent criteria for sources[edit]

Tillman, you just removed the qualifier, "who has called the science of man-made climate change a hoax," after the name of Senator Inhofe, with the edit summary, "WP:BLP." Can you please explain your rationale? It sets Inhofe's request in context, and I can't see how it's out of place in a BLP on Mann. Neither do I see how it's wrong to ascribe that to Inhofe; I sourced it to his 2012 book entitled, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.

But I don't have particularly strong feelings about that line. What bothers me is that in considering it, I went to Jim Inhofe's BLP, where I found the use of kinds of sources that are never allowed in this one on Michael Mann. Personally, I think if we know something is true, the 5th pillar WP:IAR lets us ignore the most stringent rules on sourcing, like not using blogs or tabloids. But that's just how I "plead the 5th." :) Nonetheless, we should be consistent--if the BLPs on climate activists, specifically, Mann, can be cited only to impeccable sources, so should the BLPs on climate deniers, specifically, Inhofe, and vice versa.

Technically unqualified sources I found in one section:

  • Inhofe on Voice of Christian Youth America's radio program 8 March 2012 James Inhofe Says the Bible Refutes Climate Change
This poorly cited ref is from Right Wing Watch, the organ of a partisan advocacy group.
  • Leber, Rebecca (November 5, 2014). "Congratulations, Voters; You Just Made This Climate Denier the Most Powerful Senator on the Environment". Retrieved December 17, 2014.
  • Plumer, Bradford (February 10, 2011). "Is This What The Climate-Change Debate Has Come To?". The New Republic. Retrieved March 16, 2011.
The New Republic is an editorial magazine.
  • "James Inhofe proves "flat Earth" doesn't refer to Oklahoma.". Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, April 13, 2004."
  • Charles P. Pierce. "In Praise of Oklahoma". The American Prospect. February 23, 2005.
The American Prospect is a partisan political magazine.
  • Four refs cited to primary sources--Inhofe's speeches in the Senate, whereas at this article "use primary sources with care" generally means "Don't use Mann's own words unless several MSM articles repeat them." Three are now dead links, while the fourth lists Marc Morano as a contact. Nothing bearing Morano's name is permitted on Mann's article.

N.B., I am not contesting the use of those sources; I'm protesting that reliable partisan sources or Mann's own words aren't admitted here. Yopienso (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed this clause, as it was tagged for a cite, which wasn't supplied (and the tag removed). In any case, it's a gratuitous swipe that's irrelevant to that para.
Yes, I've also noted the double standard. Worth persevering to remove unsourced or poorly-sourced BLP material. Even for politicians. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Somehow you missed that I added a cite to his book titled Hoax, etc., 13 min. after you tagged it. About an hour later Dave added a ref that quotes Inhofe thusly: "NOAA’s report, released in February, was requested by U.S. Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who called the theory of man-made climate change a hoax. The report found no evidence of 'manipulation of data.'" He's now undone your revision, which I think is proper. Without the clause, Inhofe's motive is misunderstood. It seems clear that he called for the investigation not so much as an impartial Senator concerned with fraud, but as a climate denier in a position of power. That's how I interpret this 2010 article in The Guardian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talkcontribs) 08:54, 7 January 2015‎
  • Inhofe speech July 28, 2003, in which he disputed Mann's work: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."[1] . . dave souza, talk 09:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to why you posted that, but I rather doubt it was to provide a precedent for including as a reference in this article a court document in which Mann's paid counsel wrote on his behalf, "As the result of this research, Dr. Mann and his associates were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize" (p. 2, paragraph 2). Yet that's precisely what it does, if you're saying that's a RS for Inhofe's views. I agree it is, and so is the lawsuit for Mann's. And so are his public figure (not private individual) Facebook page, the jacket flap of his book, and his old Penn State web page.
We all know that Inhofe has repeatedly called global warming a hoax, and that, until the IPCC issued the clarification, Mann repeatedly claimed to have won, or to have shared in the award of, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Yopienso (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Posted it simply as a source confirming Bloomberg's (and our) wording, it's a public statement by Inhofe. Thanks for providing a reference to Inhofe's book, either source seems good to me. It's not a court document, and as discussed earlier there's specific WP:BLPPRIMARY policy that we don't use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.
If what anyone has said about sharing the IPCC's half of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize is significant, there will be reliable secondary sources explaining the significance: we shouldn't go hunting for what they've said and adding it to all their bios. That's the difficulty with a developing situation, much appreciate your help with this. . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It is fine to say that Inhofe called global warming a hoax because that is in the Bloomberg article.[2] The relevance is that he was an opponent of Mann's opinions and thought that an investigation would discredit it. It is not a good idea however to use primary sources, since they could inject synthesis. Adding that someone thinks global warming is a hoax tends to discredit anything they say or do. That is why right-wing media are eager to discredit Mann over alleged Nobel claims. If he was wrong on that, he is wrong on global warming. TFD (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
No one (except Mann) denies that he once claimed to have shared the Nobel prize. No one (that I can think of) claims that Inhofe does not claim that global warming is a hoax. However, the first is more relevant to this article than the second. That the sources that support the first are more right-wing than those that support the second shouldn't affect reliability or significance. To clarify, there are no unbiased reliable sources which support the significance of the second, and no sources which support its significance to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of Mann denying that he erroneously believed/claimed he had won part of a Nobel Prize. As soon as the IPCC defined the matter, he accepted that he had "contributed toward" the prize but had not "been awarded" any portion of it. To me, the fact that he changed documents and stopped making the claim was the best way he could rectify his prior error. My rub is with WP editors who deny (or suppress the fact on technicalities) that he initially made the claim. Yopienso (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Care is needed with accuracy about language here, and I've not seen Mann claiming he "had won part of a Nobel Prize". The flysheet of his 2012 book says "he jointly received", the lawsuit press release he put on his Facebook page says "he was awarded". Of course in both instances the third person implies that it wasn't written by Mann. . . dave souza, talk 10:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
"Balancing aspects" says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." It does not say that we should balance mainstream media with U.S. libertarian blogs. While it maybe that Bloomberg News is a biased left-wing source, it nonetheless is considered mainstream media. Note that they do not mention Inhofe's views on global warming in order to challenge his judgment, but to explain why he challenged Mann. Certainly you do not think he would have challenged the report if happened to support his views on global warming. I doubt too that it would have attracted the attention of so many editors. TFD (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I have little doubt that Bloomberg News wouldn't have mentioned Inhofe's views if they didn't consider it relevant, but they didn't say it was relevant, and many, even academic, papers have digressions not really related to the theme of the article. It still seems synthesis to assert its relevance even to the extent of using it. In addition, it's even more of a "passing mention" than comments about the Peace Prize in mainstream media. In other words, Mann's statements about the Nobel Piece Peace prize are relevant, but not important. Inhofe's views on global warming are, perhaps, important, but not relevant. (They almost certainly should be mentioned in Inhofe's article.) We probably should include neither here, in the absence of reliable sources asserting facts and relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Inhofe has a history of attacking Mann's work going back at least to 2003, so his intervention is relevant, as discussed by Bloomberg. As you say, good sources are needed for anything about the "Nobel" allegations, which should really be discussed in a new talk section if you're proposing some. . dave souza, talk 09:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to Dave's comment of 16:56, 7 January 2015, thanks for explaining why you posted the source. But you're doing just what I'm talking about--presenting a public document, forbidden by the excerpt you pasted in from WP:BLPPRIMARY, and without the requisite secondary source. ("Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.") And, to use your word, it's "stale." Why is all that OK for a BLP about Inhofe, but not for one about Mann? Again, because both men have repeatedly made their opinions abundantly clear in public, I think WP:IAR applies. To both. Yopienso (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I should perhaps have made it clearer at the time that this is a primary source supplementing the Bloomberg article. Regarding "stale", this was discussed above with reference to a legal news posting that was superseded by the more recent appeal hearing and the revised defamation suit filed by Mann's lawyer. Don't know if that source has discussed the changes, if it's important I'd have expected them to note it. . dave souza, talk 09:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Was a consensus reached regarding the clause about Inhofe? It has been removed again [3] TimOsborn (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point, I've restored it. Pete seems to be zealously trying to give equal validity to fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 16:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

Multiple reliable sources are available to confirm Inhofe's reputation for making claims that global warming science is a hoax. His own April 1, 2012, book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future is evidence of that, but it's really a primary source and the publisher WorldNutDaily Books has a dubious reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
The most academic source I've found so far is John S. Dryzek; Richard B. Norgaard; David Schlosberg (18 August 2011). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. p. 153. ISBN 978-0-19-956660-0. The single most prominent Republican when it comes to climate change denial is Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, famous for claiming in a Senate speech that global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.'   My understanding is that OUP books like this are peer-reviewed.
With greater relevance to Mann and the CRU email inquiries, a scholarly book published by Routledge Explorations in Environmental Studies: Gerald Kutney (3 February 2014). Carbon Politics and the Failure of the Kyoto Protocol. Routledge. pp. 107–109, 110–111. ISBN 978-1-317-91466-2. His infamous 'hoax' accusation appeared at the start of this long speech, and three more times near its end . These included "I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax" as well as "With all the hysteria, all the fear, all the phony science, could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? I believe it is." In October 2004 he repeated on the Senate floor "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." He issued a 20-page brochure under the seal of the US Senate, The Facts and Science of Climate Change which repeated the hoax claim and in a section titled "The IPCC Plays Hockey" disputed what it said was Mann's flawed, limited research. In August 2005 Inhofe invited fiction writer Michael Crichton to speak in the Senate as an "expert witness" disputing Mann's research. Inhofe had a leading role in a minority group Senate report, "Legal and Policy Issues in the CRU Controversy", published in February 2010. It presented claims that emails demonstrated unethical and possibly illegal behaviour, and listed as "Key Players" 17 scientists including Mann and Jones. On 26 May Inhofe formally requested the OIG to investigate the issues in relation to NOAA, it found no major issues or inappropriate actions. In his 2012 book The Greatest Hoax, Inhofe proposed slashing the budget of the "rogue" EPA, and stated "My point is, God's still up there…. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
That's a mixture of quote and summary by myself, it seems to me a better source than Inhofe's book for the statement we've already attributed to Bloomberg, so I'll substitute it. The detail should be useful in the Jim Inhofe article, though the book also covers other aspects less directly related to Mann. . . dave souza, talk 14:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

We need a source for relevance. I'm sure one can be found, but it is needed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Both Kutney and Bloomberg show clear relevance: the latter states "NOAA’s report, released in February, was requested by U.S. Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who called the theory of man-made climate change a hoax. The report found no evidence of “manipulation of data.” Alternatively, we could summarise Kutney's account of how Inhofe as a long-term opponent of Mann's work used the emails to make further allegations before going a step further and arranging the investigation. Either way, it's important to show the context that this investigation was arranged by a politician opposed to Mann's science. The various accounts of the NOAA investigation take care to show Inhofe's position on the science. . dave souza, talk 21:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Nit-pick about a false statement in the article[edit]

The article currently reads, in part, "... and concluded that there was no evidence of manipulation of data." That sentence is false for the primary and secondary usage of the word "manipulate." Data that are not manipulated are usually worthless; it was and it is the job of the CRU to manipulate climatology data. One can assume the writer meant the tertiary usage of the word "manipulate." Perhaps the article could be changed to reflect the fact that the data manipulation the CRU did in the past (and still does) was found to be non-fraudulent, and was found to be scientifically correct. As a science communicator, I think events that are controversial among non-scientists (such as the fake "climategate" hoax) need to be explained with hyper precision, and saying there was no evidence of data being manipulated is lazy. Data exist to be manipulated: that is what data are for. --Desertphile (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've inserted the word "inappropriate" per the Inspector General's letter to Sen. Inhofe. YoPienso (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


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)

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 [4]. 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 [5]. 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)