Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:45, 29 July 2010

Template:Community article probation

This page is not a forum for general discussion about anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Criticism of investigations

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

The allegations that the investigations were "whitewashes" are very controversial, so I think more sources, with more attribution, would be very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember that this is an article about Cuccinelli's investigation and not the CRU email episode. A couple of examples are enough to make the point; indeed, I would argue that there already is excessive coverage of the CRU investigations here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case I think it can kept to one sentence by saying something like "The various investigations into the Climatic Research Unit email controversy have been criticized as a "whitewash" in the media, namely in ." Then list all the sources in a single footnote. That will keep it brief. Cla68 (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I included two more references, two different sources for the "whitewash" point. I did not add language at all, so we are not running into UNDUE -- I just added sources to support the statement that the the investigations have been criticized. There are now four refs. I don't think it's appropriate to list each one because that implies that those would be the only critics, and that is not the case -- I could continue to add refs to make the point, but that gets unwieldy in the article. The general statement that 'the investigations have been criticized' should be sufficient, I believe. Minor4th 06:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think four refs are sufficient. Cla68 (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've taken it out. It's off-topic for this article - the UK inquiries did not investigate Mann (obviously, since he's not in their jurisdiction) but focused on the CRU. I deliberately did not go into any detail about the UK inquiries for that reason. I've replaced it with a couple of lines of reaction on the PSU investigations, which are relevant here since they are being cited by PSU in Mann's defence. I've added reaction pro and con, though I've only been able to find one critical response about the investigations - though it makes the point that I've seen being made elsewhere by denialists, so it would seem like a good summary of denialist reaction in general. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris, three of us just agreed on how to word it, and you came along and unilaterally removed it. That isn't very helpful collaboration. Cla68 (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The three of you were missing the point (well, maybe not Boris; he alluded to it) that this isn't about the CRU email episode. Consequently the outcome of the CRU investigations and the related criticism isn't germane to this article. The three British investigations did not investigate Mann. My amendment has focused the reaction specifically on the PSU investigations of Mann, which are relevant to this article. Let's not stray into side issues here - the focus of this episode is Mann, not the CRU. Please do note that I have made an effort to represent critical opinion as well as supportive opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

BRD

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

• I note in particular that two of the references you removed specifically mentioned Mann and the invrstigations related to him. Your removal of the word "alleged" in front of "thefts" was improper -- the investigation is ongoing and a whistleblower has not been ruled out. Describing every critic as a "skeptic" is unnecessarily POV, as is the insertion of right-wing, "free-market" descriptors to every aspect you dont like, and it makes the article cumbersome and hard to read. Minor4th 13:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• ChrisO, please follow the process in WP:BRD - your reversion without discussion of Minor4th's reversion is disruptive, and could be construed to be against policy. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify - WP:BRD is an essay, not policy or a guideline. It's not a bad idea by any means, but it's not a policy and cannot be "invoked". Guettarda (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already pointed out above that criticism of the British inquiries into the Climatic Research Unit is not germane to the American inquiries into Michael Mann's work. However, I agree that one of the sources I removed - - does appear to be germane and I'll restore that. Second, Cuccinelli's political allegiances are obviously relevant. Are you disputing what the sources say, i.e. that he is a conservative Republican? Third, the theft of the emails is an established fact. They weren't released with any authorisation and the method by which they were acquired does not alter that fact - whether it was a hacker or a supposed whistleblower who did it, they were stolen. The emails have been routinely described as "stolen" since the start of the controversy (see e.g. . This issue has been discussed extensively over on the CRU controversy talk page and the article, you will note, describes the data as stolen. The "whistleblower" explanation is pure speculation and has no place here. Please see FAQ #5 at the top of Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Finally, blindly reverting and wiping out every edit I've made is grossly disruptive. Don't do it. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I've now produced a compromise version of the disputed line. The previous version wasn't very good because it was too vague - "The various investigations into the Climatic Research Unit email controversy have been criticized as a whitewash..." That doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements, which requires biased statements to be properly attributed. The criticism is now specifically attributed to named individuals and organizations, citing the Fox News story mentioned above. It is also now specifically related to commentary on PSU's investigation, not the UK ones which, as I've pointed out, did not investigate Mann. It also went into way too much detail with a coatrack of claims. This is not the place to rehash all the criticism. It is only necessary for the purposes of this article to note three facts - that claims were made; that PSU cleared Mann; that critics didn't like the outcome. Anything else is extraneous detail and belongs, if it belongs anywhere, in other articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. It's YOUR article. Minor4th 13:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics