Talk:Michael E. Mann/Archive 4

NPOV reason
Not enough detail on hockey stick controversy, so I've tagged it. At the least, the Hockey Stick Illusion needs to be referenced here if people are going to be insisting on including much less notable criticism in articles like Solomon and Monckton. ATren (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC
 * Please don't be silly, and don't indulge in revenge tagging William M. Connolley (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of controversy surrounding this guy it is ridiculous that so little of it is mentioned, we need to add some of that content here mark nutley (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What more mention do you need? There is already a very obvious link to the controversy article in the lead; that's pretty much as up-front as can be done. siafu (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly be nice if everyone was adhering to that topic restriction Cla68 was on about - why are you participating in edit wars? What, exactly, do you want to change in the article? Please make a specific proposal for change. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hipocrite. The decision is long-delayed, but anticipated soon, would it really hurt to hold off a couple days? It does look like revenge tagging, while there may be issues, I don’t think the first thing to do it to tag. The first thing to do is talk about what is needed. While it is understandable one might not expect agreement, one should start with the assumption that reasonable editors will agree on reasonable points, and only if there is intractability, should the NPOV tag be used.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your right phil, i have self reverted mark nutley (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article significantly to provide more info on Mann's career and to reword some awkwardly phrased bits elsewhere. The "controversial" bits are covered in three paragraphs under a new heading, "Climate change controversies". To my mind, the current balance in this section is about right. We have one summary paragraph each on the three principal controversies (the hockey stick, the CRU emails and the Cuccinelli investigation), linking to the spinoff articles on those subjects. If those articles didn't exist then Marknutley would have a valid point about adding material on those controversies here. However, as each of the articles is lengthy and detailed, there's no need to overload this article and turn it into a coatrack for secondary issues. The key points of each can be adequately covered in a single summary paragraph. We do, however, still need more info on Mann's career and work - I feel that what we have now is a bit thin, considering the scale and significance of Mann's work. I've done what I can with the resources that I have, but as I'm a non-expert I don't really feel I can get much further on that aspect. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why
I have reverted ChrisO's change to my addition, because it omitted important details. However, I did move it up so it follows the Climategate paragraph. ATren (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "better", and you wiped out a set of unrelated changes in your blind revert. You're coatracking the article - exactly as I warned against - by adding a set of allegations without any countering POV. The order of your edit is also wrong - the allegations need to be presented before the response. If you want to add the detail of Michaels' POV, please do so in the CRU emails article. For the purposes of this article, all we need to note is the general gist of the allegation - that Mann was supposedly attempting to block the publication of others' papers. There's no need to add lengthy quotes from Michaels to establish that allegation. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your version is a whitewash, and it's your second revert. I've tagged it until the relevant criticism is added back in. You should self revert since this article is 1RR. ATren (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Atren, your version is an unrebutted smear by Michaels. Agree with the principle of keeping detail in the relevant articles on the "controversies". Since Michaels has been arguing against Mann from long before the emails, and using columns in the WSJ to make unjustified attacks on climate scientists, that's something that needs carefully balanced treatment and not a simple assertion presenting Michaels as just another climatologist. . dave souza, talk 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It's perfectly reasonable criticism in a highly respectable source. Stop pushing your POV. ATren (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Atren – Oh yeah? Source added. . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is not under 1r mark nutley (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, don't be so quick to tag stuff in revenge. I've removed the tag William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ATren, please consider the following:
 * It's too much detail. This is supposed to be a summary section linking out to a more detailed article, where I've said your addition would be more appropriate.
 * It's entirely one-sided. It presents allegations without any responding POV and no mention of the fact that Michaels' claim was rejected.
 * Michaels is plainly not just "another climatologist". He isn't a working scientist, as far as I can see from his article, and is employed by the Cato Institute - an anti-climate science organisation. His affiliations need to be mentioned in order to attribute the statement appropriately.
 * His claims have not been "whitewashed". They are still in the article, just summarised. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's a whitewash. The more detailed version is clearly appropriate. ATren (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How can it be a whitewash if the claims are still there in a summary version? Wouldn't a whitewash require them to be taken out altogether? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tagged the section in question as POV, atren is correct mark nutley (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's another smear by Michaels, more detail available if need be, but that's getting off topic. . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL at the argument by Michaels – "So it would seem the Soon-Baliunas paper was just part of the normal to-and-fro of science." See Soon and Baliunas controversy. If the papers by Michaels were down to that standard, no wonder they got rejected! . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave, you clearly have a POV here. Leave it to those who don't. ATren (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mind not making comments like that while I'm having a drink? You owe me a new monitor now... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @ ChrisO, Who? It made me LOL, but it wasn't that funny and I deny all responsibility
 * @ Atren, you're clearly ignorant about Soon et al. so do please study the subject. . . dave souza, talk 22:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And you're clearly so blinded by your own POV that you don't recognize that the threat by Mann is notable regardless of the context. That other paper is irrelevant to what Mann said and did. Once again, you are letting your POV cloud your editorial judgement, something very common here. ATren (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant ATren's remark. "Leave it to those who don't [have a POV]" - is ATren including himself in that category? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely not. ChrisO, I have no fucking clue who most of these people are. I never saw Gore's film, never read a book on the topic, never cared enough to even study the science. My passion in this topic area is purely driven by the inequity of the coverage, which is obvious to someone like me. You guys routinely push your POV and you don't even realize you're doing it. Look at the above: Dave is reading into the issue rather than just trusting the source. It's classic POV behavior and it's rampant in this subject area. You're just as guilty of it. Unfortunately, arbcom will probably not see it either because (I believe) they too have sympathies aligned with your faction. Incredibly, people like me, Cla68, Lar, and SlimVirgin, none of whom have any history whatsoever of activism in this area, are equated to people like WMC, you Dave, SBHB, etc, all of whom have extensive history on wiki (and sometimes off) promoting your views in this area. It's ridiculous, and an embarrassment to this entire project. ATren (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I doubt if you will believe me, but I also never saw Gore's film, never read a book on the topic, never cared enough to even study the science. My interest in the topic area is driven first and foremost by the appalling BLP editing I've seen here - such as Marknutley's very first edit on Wikipedia. Unfortunately the way you went about adding Michaels' allegations is part of the problem. BLP requires us to be very conservative when dealing with accusations against living persons. There is a certain way to approach such claims, and that wasn't the way to do it. I've explained above how this can best be dealt with and I'm happy to work with you to get it sorted amicably. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my, the hypocrisy is dripping on this thread. ChrisO, grand defender of BLPs; and the same editor who edit-warred to include a critical presentation from some professor's web page in a skeptic BLP. Sorry Chris, your BLP gallantry rings hollow. ATren (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What you're interpreting as POV is actually strict application of BLP. In the article in question, which has been so badly affected by BLP violations that it's had to be semi-protected for the majority of its existence, I've repeatedly taken out BLP violations directed both at the subject of the article and at other individuals with whom the subject has been in disagreement. We're not just talking about trivial gossip, we're talking seriously defamatory material here. My involvement with that article has been essential in keeping it in (fairly) good condition. Another admin with no previous involvement in this topic area and extensive experience of editing BLPs of British politicians has said that "even without the addition of ChrisO's good work, this biography is in much better shape than that of many current cabinet ministers" - I think that speaks for itself. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Chris, please. Your BLP hackery on Monckton was shameful, do not try to spin it any other way. 02:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ChrisO: Do you honestly expect a newbie editor to understand Wikipedia's complicated rules on WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS on their very first edit? And did you take the time to take help this editor add his contribution to Wikipedia so that it followed all of Wikipedia's rules?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) No, but I do expect newbie editors not to post idiotic things sourced to cranks, and (2) at the time this article was being swarmed by hit-and-run editors, so there was nothing to mark nutley (apologies for the pun) out from the rest at the time. He just happened to be one of the few new editors to stick around and avoid getting banned or indefinitely blocked. Marknutley has since had extensive advice from other editors on how to follow Wikipedia's rules, and, to be honest, it doesn't seem to have made a huge amount of difference. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox is in the wrong place
Why is the info box in the center of the article? Shouldn't it be on the right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * . I could fix that up, but I see it's not going to be possible at the moment, so I've given up on fixing these kind of things for now. Hipocrite (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's displaying in the right place (top right) for me on Firefox 3.6.8 and IE 8. What browser are you using? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm using IE8, 32-bit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked FireFox 3.6.4 and Chrome, and it looks fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked IE8, 64-bit and it looks fine. So far, IE8 32-bit is the only one with the formatting issue.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's very odd. I'm also using IE8 32-bit and it looks fine too. Could it be your display settings? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tried tweaking the infobox. Can you check how it looks to you now? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks fine now. What did you do?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a hunch that it was the awards section. I added some HTML line breaks to make it a bit more digestible for the browser. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Article tags
For everyone to note and action: General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. ATren and Marknutley please note in particular. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've subdivided the controversies section and moved the tag Marknutley added to the section that (I think) he is disputing. If it's in the wrong place please feel free to move it elsewhere. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the POV tag on the CRU email section because I added numerous sources from both sides of issue.  If anyone cares to replace it, that's fine with me.   I'm not edit warring the tag -- just thought it could be removed with the additional sources and balancing info.  But it's up to y'all.  Minor4th  10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your addition. I've taken the liberty of amending it a little to make it more concise and remove some redundant elements that were already in an earlier section of the article - I'm guessing you copied and pasted this in from another article, so it needed a little more work to make it fit properly into this one. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hockey stick controversy
This section could probably be expanded. When I say that, I don't mean that the details of the criticisms of his research should be expanded, because I think that is probably more appropriate for the controversy article. Instead, I think this article should have more detail on the effects of MBH98 and 99 on Mann's career. For example, the widespread acclaim and fame he received after the two papers were published and the graph was used prominently by scientific and media organizations. I read that for a scientist as young as Mann to be chosen as the chief editor of a chapter in the IPCC's report was unusual and remarkable. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a very good idea. I'm afraid I don't really know enough about it to document it, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to add, I don't think that aspect should go in the "controversies" section since it doesn't really seem to be controversial. I've revised the article to describe the MBH98 paper in the main "career and work" section. We can address the aspects you mention as a continuation of that description. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have modified it to clear up the 98/99 confusion, we should probably also give a mention to Mann et al. 2008 as work on temp reconstructions. . dave souza, talk 08:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyviolation
The majority of the Awards section is a copyviolation of this .pdf page 18. Should it be removed until rewritten? mark nutley (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought there was some works-of-US-govt are PD clause William M. Connolley (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PSU isn't the federal government. It's a state-supported institution. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a copyvio. It provides the same basic information but worded quite differently. See below. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably not a copyvio, but it's edging a little close to plagiarism. It's not a cause for immediate removal but some of those sentences probably ought to be rephrased a bit more and/or the use of quotation marks should be employed more liberally. NW ( Talk ) 14:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Michaels' criticism is muted
The alarmist faction has whitewashed the Michaels criticism to the point where it is completely lost. This was published in a major newspaper and it represents the sentiments of many who believe Mann acted badly here. Furthermore, it questions the validity of the private inquiries which exonerated him, and there is not a word of that in the current version. Also, Michaels is a climatologist, so I plan to restore that. Finally, this is notable enough for its own paragraph, so I will restore the paragraph break. Mann's supporters here need to stop whitewashing this notable and well-sourced criticism. ATren (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another published criticism of Mann supporting Michaels. ATren (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Another ATren (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've redacted your PA. Don't do this please William M. Connolley (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your "independent support" is from Steve Milloy. Please, try to take this seriously William M. Connolley (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter. You are evaluating valid sources through your POV lens. ATren (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ATren, please stop attacking other editors. I am getting very tired of the way you keep denouncing other editors as an "alarmist faction" intent on "whitewashing". I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. I've already told you that your proposed addition is a WP:COATRACK which is undue weight for this article, and I've suggested that you try to work it into the CRUec article instead. Please try to edit cooperatively instead of trying to force material into the article without consensus. I'd like to remind you that the BLP policy requires consensus to be obtained first, which you have not done. You're setting yourself up for action from the ArbCom if you persist with this. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not coatrack. It's impeccably sourced and relevant to Mann. I plan to add it back in later today. If you would like to propose an alternate wording which incorporates all of the elements above, feel free, and we can discuss. That's how it's supposed to work, remember? ATren (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please suggest a text on this talk page. When you do, let's discuss it and agree where it can go. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * . ATren (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text
Climatologist Patrick Michaels has criticized Mann for his role in the Climate emails scandal. Michaels cited an email from 2003 in which Mann discussed his intent to "encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in" a journal which published a paper that disputed his work. Michaels claimed that he had four papers rejected by that paper since Mann's email. Michaels has also disputed the findings of both the Penn State and East Anglia investigations, claiming that the results were influenced by "tens of millions in federal global warming research funding" which both universities receive.


 * Reference: The Climategate Whitewash Continues - Patrick Michaels, Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2010

Comments
I am concerned that this proposed text states as fact what is merely one participant's opinion - while that might be acceptable in other articles, this is the biography of one of his adversaries. I am further concerned that Michaels' claims are presented without any reference to Mann's rebuttal. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly how criticism is presented in other BLPs. It's fine. If you have Mann's rebuttal, bring it here for discussion. ATren (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you not read the followup, published in the WSJ? It seems like doing the source based research is a prelude to proposing an edit. Hipocrite (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not cease the games and just point to it? ATren (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * . Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the above is what Dave Souza has said before - it's an unrebutted smear. The term "Climate emails scandal" is your POV. You omit the fact that Michaels is a Cato Institute member, not a working scientist. The claim by Michaels about the 2003 email is unrebutted and out of context. The claim about the four rejected papers is unrebutted. The claim about the funding of the universities is unrebutted. It's entirely one-sided. It presents allegations without any responding POV and no mention of the fact that Michaels' claims were rejected. It's undue weight in giving so much attention to one critic who has been a long-time enemy of Michael Mann, and it's unnecessarily wordy. You're also overlooking the fact that this material is already in the article in a less undue-weight form.


 * I'm going to compare what you're proposing with what's there now:


 * I remind you that BLPs are meant to be treated conservatively and are not a dumping ground for fringe smears. I propose to take this to the BLP noticeboard for an outside view. Will you agree to this? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Chris, this is standard practice in other BLPs. The text is impeccably sourced and relevant. If Hipocrite links to Mann's rebuttal we can discuss adding that in too, but this entire text is a fine summary of Michaels' two main points. Take it to BLP/N if you like. If you do, I will raise comparisons to other BLPs in this topic area for reference. ATren (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll raise it at BLP/N as agreed. Please don't try to add it to the article in the meantime. It's your decision as to whether to raise other BLPs in the topic area but please don't forget that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not regarded as a valid argument. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional sources showing various views
I've commented at the BLP noticeboard giving various sources about the long-running dispute between Michaels and Mann. If any mention is made of criticisms by Michaels, these other sources should also be used to give some balance. . . dave souza, talk 12:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard discussion
I've started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard about the material that ATren wants to add to this article. Please see WP:BLPN. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit protected
Please remove the category Climatologists as this page is already in a narrower subcategory American Climatologists. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ NW ( Talk ) 03:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting Paper
This new paper blows mann`s "work" out of the water. Were should we put it? Here or the HSC article? mark nutley (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, first, you really should know better than to take Watts' anti-science nonsense as fact. It's revealing that you seem to rely on a blog that promotes crank conspiracy theories for all your information on this topic. Second, the thing you've just linked is headlined "Submitted to the Annals of Applied Statistics". It appears to be merely a submission. I could submit something to a journal but that wouldn't remotely make it a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly anti-science nor crank. Comment on content and try to leave your POV at the door. It is submitted yes but will no doubt be published. I also linked in the url for the paper btw. mark nutley (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, your opinion on WUWT is noted, but not widely shared. Secondly, Talk:Global warming/FAQQ22 applies even more to unpublished than to published papers. And thirdly, have you read the paper, not just Watts' bowdlerisation? While the paper has a couple of whoppers, too, their reconstruction is not, actually, in wild disagreement with MBH. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course i read it, and it vindicates M&M does it not. It also states in short that the poxie records are junk and not fit for purpose. We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago But we`ll wait till it`s published, the fat lady has begun to sing guys mark nutley (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What happened to "try to leave your POV at the door"? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing stuff
Should we judge the content OR the person adding the content? Ref.: Nsaa (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "(rv it does not say hundreds of individual scientists in the source, wp:or) -> (rv - don't restore Scibaby edits or you will get blocked too)" and
 * 2) "Virginia Attorney General's investigation: edit hyperbole, not supported by source" -> "m (Reverted edits by Sympaticox (talk) to last version by Arzel)"?
 * Socks of banned users are routinely reverted to enforce the ban. If you want to take responsibility for the edits, do so with a clear edit summary. However, I suggest you consider the edits carefully. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Be aware that editing on behalf of a banned editor is unlikely to be tolerated by administrators or arbitrators. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * Unfortunately "burdensome and unwarranted" were nowhere in the cited reference, so I have removed that portion.  I replaced the sourced information that you removed regarding investigation of deliberate manipulation of climate data, and I attributed the "shameful abuse" quote to the individual who actually said it.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 23:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * The fraudulent act that is being investigated is the potential deliberate manipulation of climate data to arrive at a pre-set conclusion. I'm misreading nothing. I really hope that you did not remove this sourced information once again.   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 00:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * That was my mistake -- I searched "burdensome" and "unwarranted" but I did not see that there was a second page where the quote resided.   My mistake  on that, and my apologies.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 00:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Regarding the other issue, about the proper reading of the spokesman's comments, I'd like to raise it at the BLP noticeboard to get some outside views. I'll post a link shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've raised the latter issue at WP:BLPN. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 00:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The wholesale removal of the section on the AG investigation is improper considering a BLP notice was just begun and also considering this article is under probation and there is not anything even close to consensus about removing the well sourced section. I am going to give the editor an opportunity to self revert and seek consensus, and if he does not self revert, I intend to revert his removal of the section so that discussion can be had and consensus can be sought. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 02:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've restored it. It's about him and it's well-sourced, so there's no reason to remove it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BLPN discussion and please refrain from re-adding contentious material to a WP:BLP until discussion concludes. A link remains to the main article, there is no need whatsoever to insist on a fuller summary here at this minute. Rd232 talk 03:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rd, I don't want to edit war over this, but BLP and UNDUE are never reasons to remove when material is as well-sourced and directly relevant as this. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, why don't you paste the entire AG investigation article here? WP:UNDUE is never irrelevant. There is too little information available about the investigation itself - most of the AG article is about responses. In other words, it's currently hot air and vapours, and reporting it here is undue. Mentioning it is covered elsewhere is OK [you did see the sentence I wrote linking it?]. Besides which, regardless of disagreement, the material is undoubtedly contentious at the moment and so you certainly should not be wanting to edit war it into the article prior to discussion concluding. Rd232 talk 03:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to be fairly balanced in covering the accusations and the objections to the investigation. I'm not clear on why you don't think it's appropraite to include it rd232. Can you explain? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well apparently repeated requests to leave the long description out pending the conclusion of discussion (which is how contentious WP:BLP material is supposed to be handled) are going to be ignored, so I wash my hands of it. I was just passing by BLPN (I don't watch this article) and wanted an appropriate discussion (prior to reinsertion if so agreed); I have neither the stomach nor the interest to deal with edit warriors willing to ignore BLP. I've also already explained quite adequately at BLPN why detailing the investigation here is wrong. Bye. Rd232 talk 16:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And if passersby wonder at the "edit warriors" remark - this is not an unreasonable conclusion under the circumstances, given the complete failure to engage with the reasons given for removal, with justifications for immediate reinsertion of contentious BLP material including the red herrings of "well sourced" and "notable" (both of which are also disputable, but were not disputed). Rd232 talk 16:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you think the BLP issue is? Freakshownerd (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Vague insinuations of fraud arising from reporting an investigation whose details are not clear, and conclusions seemingly far off. See also WP:BLPN thread where I've elaborated on this. Rd232 talk 19:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

{{outdent]] Rd232 is misunderstanding and misapplying BLP policy. Removal is not proper except in cases where controversial content is unsourced or poorly sourced, and that is certainly not the case here. The information is nowhere near WP:UNDUE either -- it's a short summary of the high points, as opposed to a lengthy discussion. Editors from "both sides" of the divide have edited this section and included positive and negative content with reliable sourcing. There is simply no policy rationale for removing the content, and I would appreciate if Rd232 would further refrain from misapplying BLP policy, as his arguments do not apply here. To call "well-sourced" and "notable" red herrings in this discussion shows an incredible failure to understand BLP policy. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy states that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious content should be removed immediately. If the quality of the sourcing is disputed, it makes far more sense to remove it temporarily NOT necessarily permanently pending outcome of discussion than to insist on retaining it whilst the quality of sourcing is debated. The quality of the sourcing is disputed because the vagueness of the claims creates insinuations; it doesn't matter if the vague claims are repeated accurately, there's still a BLP problem - this is well established BLP practice. Furthermore, if you need to look up what a red herring is, feel free to do so - then go back to where I made that statement. PS At BLPN you mention factionalism - well an insistence on maintaining vague accusations of fraud even before discussion on it concludes looks a damn sight more factional than wanting it removed temporarily pending discussion on whether to remove it permanently (or until the story develops). Rd232 talk 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, just to be crystal clear, the removal of contentious content pending discussion is a well-established practice regardless of BLP considerations. It just makes sense, in terms of cooling things down and avoiding edit wars and focussing on discussion. Rd232 talk 18:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you not see that removing the work of several editors with different POV's has not cooled things down but has actually instigated an edit war rather than heading one off? The BLP "issue" was over one statement about the nature of the fraud investigation, and in response you removed the whole darn section rather than clarify the one sentence or deal with that particular issue.  I have now clarified that one sentence so there should be no issue at all.   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would cool things down if people accepted the principle of temporarily removing contentious content and allowing some time for discussion on what to do with it. It's not my fault they didn't; not being involved with climate change articles much for a long time, I'd clearly forgotten what a WP:BATTLEGROUND this is. Rd232 talk 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Precisely so. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * This twisting of policy to allow the removal of material has to end, Chris, and it's always the same names (and not just in CC articles). Please allow our readers to see what you have seen, unless it really is nonsense. Don't be a censor.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely correct. If the investigation had concluded, it could be briefly summarised. Because it has not, it requires WP:UNDUE detail to explain it with any sort of clarity. Rd232 talk 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


 * I clarified. See my edit summary.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

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

<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an Arbcom restriction. Probation for this article is the result of a community discussion. ArbCom has nothing to do with it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever.   It's on the ArbCom enforcement page. You are apparently not questioning the validity of the restriction or the enforcement of it.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not on "the ArbCom enforcement page", either. It's on the probation enforcement page, General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement, and at General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. I just want to point out that at time of writing the Virginia AG section is 16.7% of the article body text (i.e. excluding intro, publication, refs etc), while the CRU saga + Virginia AG is 41.3%. On what planet is this a due reflection of their significance in this person's life and work? Rd232 talk 19:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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


 * If you have a source that says that Cucinelli is on a general crusade and how that relates to Mann, then let's see the source.  Otherwise, it's irrelevant and it's your evaluation of events and application to Mann.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 10:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say it is relevant, if there's a good source. There's a difference between a person who's entirely uninvolved in the issue starting an action like this, and a person who's had prior involvement along the same political lines. But I'm not clear what the source is. I can't find it here, which was the ref after it in the text, unless I'm missing it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs
 * Have you looked at page 2 of that source? "Cuccinelli, who is suing the Environmental Protection Agency over global warming, promised an objective review of the documents, but he said he has a duty to investigate allegations of fraud in publicly funded research." - so the source establishes the connection. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This source indicates a direct connection in that Cuccinelli's objections to the EPA is that their decision was based on faulty data, and that goes right back to Climategate, even though the article doesn't say that. But I think it establishes a link sufficient to justify it in this article without violating SYN. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 10:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with that if the connection is made in the source. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 12:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to Rd232's continued removal of the header. He's the only one removing it that I can see. Editing has been fairly collaborative here for the last few edits, with people building on the edits before them, and it would be good if the reverting of this section could stop. It's an important issue, whichever perspective you view it from (a serious investigation or assault against academic freedom). There's no reason to hide it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is zero need for a separate section. The "investigation" (fishing expedition) follows from the CRU business. It belongs in that section. Plus, as I pointed out in the edit summary, WP:UNDUE applies - and WP:UNDUE is not just some kind of optional frivolity. Rd232 talk 12:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with SV on this.  While the AG investigation was borne out of the CRU email incident, it is a separate phenomenon and should not be hidden under a section heading that does not accurately apply to it.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 12:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Shocking. Rd232 talk 12:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's uncalled for and really not helpful to this process. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 13:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've got a headache, and your comment was extremely predictable. Rd232 talk 13:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

Rd232, I believe this is | your edit. What is the sourcing? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see the main article, Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation, which has sources. In general, summaries are only sourced if particularly contentious - if you think the sourcing insufficient, feel free to improve it with references from the main article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not correct, Stephan. Anything challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source here, per V. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If its challenged or likely to be challenged, I'd call it "particularly contentious". Anyways, it's more productive to import the refs from the main article than to ask others to do it (and yes, I know where the onus is - it's still more productive to just do it). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be good if you could not add anything that isn't well-sourced. I think that's what the request was. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Touché! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to re-saddle this source-horse which appears to be already reined-in, but I just spent the better part of a half-hour assembling the assumed source citations and incorporating them into this article (...and I hate having to do that). Perhaps assuming every . and, to be potential points of contention is the most prudent approach when editing CC-related articles.
 * As to article content vs. source content, perhaps probably more to come. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hockey stick research
I think there should be some balancing information in the hockey stick section because there has been quite a lot of notable coverage about controversy over the hockey stick graph and underlying research. There is the book The Hockey Stick Illusion that has received some attention in reliable sources, and the main stream media has covered some of the theoretical challenges to the hockey stick graph and the quality of the research and data supporting it. I do not wish to over emphasize this but I think there should be some mention. Thoughts? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * When I was a baby Wikipedian all these years ago, the goal was to write articles so that overall the reader couldn't tell which side the writer was on. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ChrisO -- by "unbalance" do you mean including critical well-sourced content that cuts against your POV? I think you have it backwards.   It would balance the article, not unbalance it.   Is it not correct that one POV should not be included without including other significant POV's that are well sourced?   Of course you know this is correct since you have used the same argument to correct me on the Attorney General investigation article.   Remember? In fact, when I included a critical bit of information on the article, FPAS went so far as to say that my edit was tendentious and block worthy because it was a refusal to follow NPOV -- apparently some admins think an editor should be blocked for including any content in an article without simultaneously including all counter positions as well.  Any one else care to weigh in on this? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 17:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what could possibly have given the impression that your editing is tendentious. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to FPAS, it was the inclusion of sourced content without also including sourced content of the opposing viewpoint. Go figure!   So what would that make you?  X_X <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverting
Chris, please don't revert wholesale; you reverted other changes too. Your lead is an example of poor writing. We don't say what the allegations are, but we do say he denied them, and you're not telling the reader it was Climategate, which most people are familiar with. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See above, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


 * If you would focus only on quality and not politics, the article would improve. I suggest we develop this as though we intend to take it through the FAC process. That would require it to be neutral and well-written. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice active banana has tagged a source saying mann in not mentioned in conjunction with climategate, this source does and is more suited mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I included this ref for the discussion of Mann. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am focusing on quality - I'm correcting your elementary mistakes. Look at the Washington Post article you just added to the lead. It says nothing whatsoever about Mann. It doesn't support any of the statements you want to use to make it about Mann. I've posted this out above. I pointed it out in an edit summary and you blithely ignored that. Another editor has added a "not in source" tag to it. When will you deal with this? There is no way that this is getting anywhere near FA if that's the kind of editing you're going to contribute. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Please source this
Whoever added this content, if you would please source it so that it does not need to be removed from the article: "In exchanges with the university—which the [/wiki/ACLU ACLU] of Virginia said was 'hard to conceive of ... as anything but a 'fishing expedition''—a brief from Cuccinelli asserted that Mann and other scientists had manipulated scientific conclusions to produce results that could be used to support the regulation of carbon dioxide."

Thanks. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * I did miss that above and thanks for doing that.  I know it is a pain, and I hoped someone would recognize this as their edit and be able to pull a source quickly.   I still don't see a reference for this particular content though.   I'll wait a while and see if Rd232 or whoever will come back and provide the source. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can locate it myself.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Evaluate sources I think somehow the sentence got mangled because it's two concepts with two different references, but in the article it looks like one sentence/one concept. The Washington Post is clearly a reliable source and I'll add that to the article and fix the sentence. What about the pdf/letter? Before I remove that, I would like other editors to comment on whether that is an appropriate source and whether that is actually the best quote we can come up with for this concept. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The source for the "hard to conceive" and "fishing expedition" is a primary source letter in pdf form from ACLU and AAAP to the Rector and visitors to U.VA.   No indication where the letter was obtained or where it was reported or any other indicia of authenticity.  There may be a secondary source somewhere, but in the main AG investigation article it is merely sourced as the pdf letter itself without any other context.   I think that is a problem and not a reliable source in and of itself.  Here is the ref:.
 * 2) How does this, as currently cited, satisfy WP:V/WP:UNDUE? It is a single, primary source. Being somewhat unfamiliar with the issue, was this not made note of in any third-party sourcing? (and any suggestions as to how to best thread responses appreciated)JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) On the Cuccinelli brief, the quote from the WashPo is "Cuccinelli's lawyers argued in essence that a small group of scientists including Mann have, essentially, manipulated scientific conclusions for years to produce results that would support massive regulation of carbon dioxide.", and the ref is:.

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


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

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

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


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

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

Editors with long memories will recall a seemingly-endless discussion at Climatic Research Unit email controversy over this use of language. Consensus was finally reached to use this language at the lede there: "The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU)."

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


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

Here are some links to previous discussions at Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy:
 * Theft (2), Nov 2009
 * Citations for allegations of criminality, Nov 2009
 * almost certainly not a hacking incident, Feb 2010
 * Lots of reliable sources are saying that it was a leak
 * etc, etc, ad infinitum

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


 * From Wordweb:
 * Stolen - Take without the owner's consent.
 * What exactly do you find objectionable? Is this not a clear case of data theft? Wikispan (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * I thought nobody was supposed to be editing CC articles at present.
 * Perhaps a plausible misconception under current circumstances, but life still goes on in CC (as far as I know).
 * I was a bit surprised by your quote as I was expecting to see "leaked" utilized in support of your assertion. Maybe I'm in forest/tree mode but can you explain? ThanksJakeInJoisey (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm retooling the suggested compromise a bit:
 * In November 2009, Mann came to public attention when the unauthorized online posting of emails between him and other climatologists obtained from a server at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia triggered a controversy that became known as Climategate. Charges of ethical misconduct were raised against Mann, but he was cleared of them by two subsequent reviews commissioned by Penn State.
 * Jake, I'm not "making an assertion," but attempting to reword the statement so as to remove bias and to make it more readable. We all agree on the facts, I think, and insisting on "stolen" or "leaked" reveals a POV inappropriate to WP.  Either word works since both are true and both are used by the MSM, but the adamancy of the editors is POV-pushing.  I would very happily see my new word, "obtained," replaced by "hacked" or "stolen" or "leaked" or "taken" so long as we retain "unauthorized."  Wikispan and ChrisO did a fine job of discussing the use of "stolen."  Totally true (except for the "universally" bit), totally logical.  Trouble comes when an editor insists on "stolen" in order to cast the person(s) who obtained the emails as criminals.  Those who reject "stolen" are crying, "There was no crime here!  Some brave soul outed those crooked scientists."  Neither spin is appropriate.  But this is a great ado about not much;  the general reader won't notice, and I for one am tired of this childish king-of-the-mountain business.
 * What does bother me is the garbled paragraph currently standing in the lede. "A number of emails" is weaselly and misleading--there were 1000s.  The whole sentence is awkward.  The second sentence dismisses allegations that have been unmentioned.  Again, may I suggest a neutral rewording?  I've given it two shots, and we have enough writing ability here that someone can improve that paragraph.
 * OK, I'm giving it one more shot myself, a bare-bones one:
 * In November 2009, Climategate thrust Mann into the public eye. Two subsequent reviews commissioned by Penn State cleared him of charges of ethical misconduct raised by the controversy.  --Yopienso (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Stolen" is in no way a statement of POV. It's a simple fact. The emails were taken without consent. Nobody has suggested they were taken with consent. Please don't invent a dispute where none exists. "Leaking" and "hacking" refer to how the theft was carried out. They are methods, not outcomes. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Chris, if you'll carefully reread what I wrote, I think you'll see we happen to agree on this matter. --Yopienso (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did, and you seem to be rejecting the use of "stolen" as POV. That's what I'm objecting to. The people who advocate the "leak" speculation are not denying that a theft occurred - they're claiming that there are extenuating circumstances. The fact of the theft is established and undisputed. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the use of "stolen" is true, logical, accurate, and appropriate. It's the insistence that that word and only that word be used that is POV.  "Taken" and "obtained" are just as true, logical, accurate, and appropriate.  I objected to using the word "stolen" if the word is chosen for the purpose of casting the "stealer" as a criminal.  It directs attention away from the emails and their contents to the person(s) who allegedly stole them, or maybe--we don't know--to the person(s) who had or believed they had a proprietary relationship with them and "released" or "leaked" or "divulged" or "published" them.  My personal opinion and understanding is that they were stolen, as per the fine discussions you and Wikispan wrote and I praised, but I can't prove that.  I can prove the MSM says so, which is enough for WP.  I think I'll just boldly edit, using the word "stolen."  Funny, Jake and ChrisO read the same thing and Jake thought I was using the word "stolen" when I shouldn't while Chris thought I was refusing to.  :S  --Yopienso (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes, that's what you get for trying to straddle the line I'm afraid! ;-) But on the contrary, "taken" and "obtained" are POV terms if they are being used to deny the fact of the theft. No single individual has a proprietary relationship with the emails - they are indisputably the property of the university and/or the various people who wrote them. There are actually multiple legal violations involved (copyright, computer misuse, data protection). That's why it's been universally described as a theft. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes! I like your winky, I agree that refusing to call a spade a spade (a theft a theft) is POV.  It's not universal, though.  For example. Yopienso
 * Anyway, I thought your revision was pretty good - thanks - and I've tweaked it a bit to focus it some more. But please note that the source you used is the same source that SlimVirgin erroneously thought was about Mann. It's not - as I've said many times before it's about one of the British enquiries into the CRU and has nothing to do with Mann, whom it doesn't even mention. I've replaced it with this source that you suggested above. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * I didn't touch the refs; thanks for fixing them. You do realize that "Climategate" is used as widely as "stolen"? ;-)  It's just after one in the morning here...zzzzzz....--Yopienso (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, I try to link to article titles rather than redirects. It's not a big deal though - I've used both the article title and the nickname so both bases are covered and all POVs are satisfied. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny, Jake and ChrisO read the same thing and Jake thought I was using the word "stolen" when I shouldn't while Chris thought I was refusing to. A quick clarification please. Yopienso, my apologies for the confusion here but I wasn't making a judgement at all but asking a question. I simply didn't recognize your italicized text as "suggested text" and erroneously thought you were attempting to provide an example where "leaked" had also been used in lieu of "stolen" in media reports (which you had alluded to in the prior sentence). My bad...and I'm still digesting this "issue". Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All good, Jake; thanks for explaining. Yopienso


 * Comment - I don't know how you can argue on the one hand that content must be removed because it's a BLP violation  to include discussion about an actual AG investigation centered on Mann for fraud related to his use of climate data, claiming that it is too vague and has not reached an ultimate conclusion -- while on the other hand argue for inclusion of an outright statement that emails were "stolen" or were the result of "theft," when there is an ongoing investigation (as far as we know) that has not reached a conclusion and has not even resulted in a specific charge or allegation.  ChrisO, please explain the seeming contradiction here.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * You're parsing and POV pushing. Here's the problem, BLP issues aside (Yes, Mastcell, I do recognize that a specific allegation against a named individual is treated differently that a blanket accusation against a particular ideological group of unnamed persons) -- we strive for NPOV, but the words "stolen" and "theft" are supercharged with way too much negative connotation that it derails the point of the content, which is about Mann. Also,  while "stolen" may be factually correct if you're applying a lay person's definition, those words also carry legal significance which has not been established or even charged.  "Leaked" is also factually correct, and there is no dispute about the accuracy and truth of whether the emails were leaked.   "Leaked" also does not carry any legal or criminal implications and it does not detract from the information that is about Mann -- the BLP of this article. Additionally, "Leaked" is used abundantly in the reliable sources while "stolen" appears nowhere, probably because it is too laden with innuendo and implication, which a good reliable source will want to avoid.  Given that, there appears to be no rationale whatsoever to use "stolen" unless the intent is to 1. Take focus away from Mann, or 2. Imply that those who oppose Mann's POV are wrong and bad and deserving of more scrutiny than Mann.  Either way, those are both POV in terms of editing Wikipedia.   Therefore "Leaked" emails should be used.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * Great, then go round up all the reliable sources that use the words "stolen" and "theft" as opposed to "leaked" and no on will argue that Wikipedia should also describe the incident as such.  Failing that, your insistence that "stolen" be used is most assuredly POV pushing.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, several reliable sources reported on the possibility that it was an intentional leak by an insider seeking to expose the documents to the light of day. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is a good reason also not the use the word "hacked" since the access to the emails may not have been unauthorized. It could have been from one of the email authors or recipients.  "Hacked" does appear in reliable sources though, so I really cannot object to it from a Wikipedia policy standpoint. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet again, I repeat: the method by which the files were stolen is a separate issue from whether the files were stolen. The method has been disputed. The fact of the theft has not. You people are confusing - I think purposefully - the method and the fact. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've posted links near the top of this, to a few of the many rounds this same argument went through at the main article, Climatic Research Unit email controversy. It's really pointless to go through this again here, when we have already arrived at a workable compromise there. Don't people have more constructive things to do with their WP volunteer time? Pete Tillman (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I was not a participant and wasn't aware this had been hashed out.  I'll take a look, but quick question -- was ChrisO involved in the prior discussion?  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting.  And curious. ChrisO -- how about you drop it now, ok?   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just the sort of hairsplitting I must confess I enjoy, but it is unproductive when editing WP. We could say "apparently stolen," like some MSM reports, but then we would fuss over whether "apparently" means "obviously" or "seemingly."  Another source says "reportedly stolen," so we could fuss over how reliable the reporting was:  "Who says?"  So I'm going to simply reference a RS that calls them "stolen."  I've chosen the staid old WSJ that some of the POV-pushers want to throw out the window.  After saying "leaked" in the subtitle and "hacked" in the lede, the fifth paragraph uses the dirty word.  The sentence to which I refer is
 * In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K.
 * I'm refraining from rebutting some of the claims made here in the past 12 hours. Silence isn't consent, but in this case I think it's golden.  --Yopienso (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Several edit conflicts later: Guess I won't--SV's done doctored it up, an' I ain't meddlin' no more.  Here's the link.  --Yopienso (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * As I understand it Cuccinelli intends to modify his request and proceed. But yes, unless and until that happens this is not going anywhere. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Cuccinelli has a case now, because I thought the sources said that Mann's research didn't use any Virginia state funds. Cla68 (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the rejection. Feel free to tweak the wording. Next issue: in the great scheme of things, this is actually a rather minor matter: I don't think it had any real impact on Mann, because right from the start almost all commentators agreed this request was flawed; the main issue became Cuccinelli's reputation. so I think there is now a case for compressing this section, and moving much of it onto Cuccineli's page instead William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen your edits on this but I agree with the concept that the section should now be compressed to a single sentence or two and let the discussion about it remain in the main article. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 11:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Pearce
I know, lets have a tedious HSI-a-like discussion of Pearce's book spread across loads of different pages. Or, why do we need it? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The RealClimate url doesn't state unambiguously that the site was founded in December 2004, which Pearce's book states clearly. So, we need Pearce's book.  What specific objection do you have to using Pearce's book? Cla68 (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cla here, Pearce is a reputable science journalist and the book does have useful info. It was published before all the inquiries had reported and is questionable on some details, but in general at least gives an overview of the general public side together with some references to relevant scientific publications. . dave souza, talk 12:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cla & Dave on this. Pearce is a good, thorough journalist. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Mann's Op Ed in Washington Post assails extreme right wing attacks on science
Michael Mann, October 8, 2010: "Get the anti-science bent out of politics" --TS 21:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume you posted this section at a placeholder to discuss including the Washington Post article. So let me give my opinion on it : This letter by Mann is a reaction to Cuccinelli's CIDs, the CRU email controversy and previous (as well as threads to future) political attacks on Mann's work. Since the "CRU emails" section is still present on Mann's biography page, I think it is appropriate if we at least reference this letter (Mann's own reaction) to the fallout of the non-scientific allegations. So you have my vote to include this reference.2meters (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added it because I thought it might be relevant, then I forgot about it for a couple of weeks. I'll add a reference to it, as I think it gives the reader an idea of his thinking about the events of the past decade or so in which he's often been targeted by various factions and individuals with an interest in the implications of his science. --TS 21:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Common criticism"
User:Jsolinsky has added to the section on the reports on the CRU hacking: A common criticism is that the committees "did not make the slightest effort to talk to any critic or even neutral observer" and that it would be difficult to exonerate Mann of the charges without first obtaining an understanding of what those charges are.

There are problems with this. Firstly it's sourced from a blog posting so that's hardly evidence of a "common criticism." Secondly it's poor balance, being derived from a blog. Thirdly it's sourced from a blog and we don't source from blogs except in very limited circumstances, and see particularly remedy 4.2.1 in the recent arbitration case, which applies to this article among others. Fourthly it's false balance. These were independent inquiries and Climate Audit can hardly be regarded as independent and disinterested. It's a partisan source that, unashamedly and without demur, is critical of climate science. --TS 18:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that is at all a fair representation of Climate Audit. McIntyre goes to great pains to be fair and has often given credit where credit is due. As recently as October 5th 2010, he complemented the clarity of Mann's code in his comment with Gavin Schmidt on the McShane Wyner paper (while admittedly simultaneously criticizing the code from Mann08).


 * But the issue at hand is not the quality of CA. The issue is this:


 * The number one reason given by critics of these reports is that they did not talk to the people whose allegation initiated the report, or otherwise respond to the numerous specific examples of conduct that was alleged to be improper. Instead they seem to respond to their own formulation of what Mann is alleged to have done, and this formulation appears to have been drawn primarily from Mann, and other individuals sympathetic to Mann.


 * As the article existed prior to my edit (and possibly afterwards) this was not adequately represented.


 * There are a wide variety of alternative ways to effect this change, and mine may not have been ideal. Certainly other sources can be used, and some of the already referenced sources could be quoted differently. I am open to suggestions.Jsolinsky (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source for the criticism, produce it. --TS 19:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack / POV discussion of Mann inquiry
I've taken the liberty of removing lots of commentary from the section "Climatic Research Unit emails", because it's turning into a coatrack. The fact that allegations were made, investigated and found to be baseless is all we need. What various people thought of it isn't really pertinent because this article isn't about newspaper coverage and commentary of the affair. The Cuccinelli investigation is also pertinent. In particular we must remember that this is a biography of a living person and that the principles adopted in the recent arbitration case apply here, especially Principle 8. --TS 22:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and I've removed some opinions that have been re-inserted. Apart from other problems, what makes these individual opinions relevant or important? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When an employer investigates allegations of wrong doing by its employees, refuses to talk to the people making the allegations, issues a report clearing its employees of wrong doing, and then gets heavily criticized for the conduct of its inquiry by the press and by academics, the controversy becomes an essential element of the fact of the inquiry. You may have a point that this section became to long, but that certainly isn't a basis for mentioning only one side of a controversy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsolinsky (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to remove the sentence in the CRU emails section that reads : " Patrick Michaels, a climatologist and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, alleged that the e-mails show Mann had encouraged colleagues to block the publication of papers disputing his work.[12][13]" and remove the two references also. These two references do not sustain the claims in this sentence. These references state many opinions that Michaels has regarding the CRU emails, and these opinions may be worth mentioning in the page regarding CRU emails, but seem out of place on a page of the biography of a living person. Any objections to removing this sentence ? 2meters (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In that Michaels' charge was found to be baseless by the first inquiry, it is of little significance and because of its damaging nature I agree that it should be removed. --TS 09:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

All the references to the problems with the Mann inquiry have been deleted from the article. Now you have something stating that Mann was cleared of the charges against him as well as references to positive reactions to the inquiry, but no references to the numerous problems with that inquiry (which were previously covered by this article). Including only references to those agreeing with the inquiry while deleting references to those who disagreed is POV --Jsolinsky (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please bear in mind what the arbitration committee has said about the importance of getting biographies of living persons right. Just piling on praise and/or criticism of an investigation by interested parties adds nothing to a biography.


 * The charges were made and investigated, and Mann was exonerated, a matter that pleased him and many of his colleagues, some of whom had been similarly slandered. A related investigation was begun by the attorney general of a state in which Mann once worked, but has so far failed in the courts. That is probably about all that due weight will bear on this matter.


 * If there were further serious charges against Mann we would have adequate sources and would therefore report them, but there aren't, we haven't and we shouldn't. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The serious problems with Mann's supposed "exoneration" are well documented, and the sources were included in this article 24 hours ago. They have been deleted. Their deletion imbalances the article.Jsolinsky (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be taking the opinions of interested parties on alleged "problems" as salient facts to be mentioned in this biography. Firstly, those parties are entitled to their opinions. Secondly, opinions are not facts. If the Senate of Penn State University at some point pronounces itself dissatisfied with the result of the two inquiries, we can report that. But interested parties expressing dissatisfaction with somebody's exoneration is not in itself relevant to the exoneration or to the exonerated subject.


 * To summarise I removed the opinions of the following parties:
 * Francesca Grifo of Union of Concerned Scientists (expressed satisfaction)
 * Sherwood Boehlert of the Project on Climate Science, "an environmental advocacy coalition" (expressed satisfaction)
 * Clive Crook, senior editor of The Atlantic (expressed disgust)
 * Josh Roskam of the Institute of Public Affairs (expressed dissatisfaction)
 * Patrick Michaels climatologist very critical of the scientific consensus (expressed concern)
 * Steven Milloy, former Fox News contributor, (called it a whitewash)
 * Most of these chaps can be classed under the rubric of "They would say that, wouldn't they?" Their dismissal of the investigation is not surprising, and not really relevant, and certainly not indicative of a scandal though I'm sure they all think otherwise. --TS 11:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's no reason to include random commentary. We might also take out Mann's own welcoming of the findings. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem with that. I think we might also trim the Washington Post commentary from the Cuccinelli affair as it's also window dressing. It's important to me that we don't let these biographical articles become proxies for the debates on the issues which are summarized in articles of their own. --TS 12:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed a number of items already discussed, added a news item about the second Cuccinelli subpoena, and performed a general cleanup of the section about the various investigations. --TS 11:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Illustrations
Related to the 'coatrack' issue of the CRU email section, I am wondering if the illustration of the CRU building still makes any sense. Michael Mann never worked at CRU, and his involvement in the CRU email controversy has been reduced to benign involvement after independent inquiries have cleared him of wrongdoing. As an alternative illustration, I would like to suggest the "hockey-stick" graph that he published with MBH98/99, that truely made him instantly famous and infamous (depending on your point of view). The illustration is here. Inserting it in the 'Hockey Stick Graph' section, left of the "The hockey stick graph has gained iconic status...." sentence would be appropriate and will also give proper weight to the graph that defined his carreer. I cannot yet make modifications (and that's a good thing for new editors like me :o) but what do other editors think of this suggestion ? 2meters (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully agree, and so I've removed the picture which has no known relevance to Mann's life. Unfortunately, the famous graph is only available as fair use, which means we can only use it on the most significant of articles. We don't seem to have a picture of the building where he now works, at University Park, Pennsylvania, but if we really want something to make the page look more interesting, the image on the right comes from that campus. . . dave souza, talk 07:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mann did a lot of his most important work at the University of Virginia so I've added a picture of the Homer statue on the lawn at the University. See what you think. --TS 08:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nods, dave souza, talk 16:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The UVA image looks nice, but serves more of a decorative function. I truely believe that Mann's biography should contain an image of the hockey stick graph, since it so much defines his career. I read the fair usage clauses and copyright statement for use of the IPCC image, and the non-free image rationale for the other two uses of this image, and I conclude that there is no problem in using this image for Mann's biography page. I added a non-free image rationale for use on this page (Michael E. Mann) which clarifies the purpose and extent. So we should be all clear to use the image, if we as editors agree. 2meters (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Good thinking, but perhaps we shouldn't confine the image of Mann to a particular version of his graph – suggest we could illustrate the "hockey stick graph" section with this freely usable multiple graph, showing three of Mann et al.'s graphs (including MBH99) along with seven other graphs confirming the same overall finding. The section would work better going over the various reconstructions and their scientific significance (up to the most recent papers), with the political controversies being moved into section 2.4 which would be retitled accordingly and would show the CRU email claims in their context as part of the long-running political dispute. Will aim to work on this shortly. . dave souza, talk 21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it may be time to re-title the CRU email section, but that is a separate issue that also may affect content in that section. Regarding the illustration, we are here on Michael Mann's biography page, and if his own MBH99 graph belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it should be right here. Remember that the spaghetti graph displays mostly the work from other scientists, and is also a work in progress (next year more work could be added by more scientists). Also, the spaghetti graph does not include the 'variability' bars (the gray uncertainty) that Mann spends considerable effort on and looks less like a hockey-stick and thus seems out of place in the section "Hockey stick graph". Overall, the spaghetti graph thus does not represent Mann's original work but more a follow-up of scientific contributions from others. 2meters (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

More news on misconduct investigations
I know everybody had forgotten about this, but the National Science Foundation has finally closed its investigation into allegations of scientific misconduct against Mann. Since this topic is covered briefly, this investigation should perhaps also be mentioned.


 * Official report from NSF
 * Science
 * Sydney Morning Herald

--TS 15:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done at last! . . dave souza, talk 16:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Should this article make more mention of the campaign against him?
As most people reading this probably know, as one of the most well-known climate scientists, Mann has been one of the main targets of climate change skeptic/denier organizations. Here's an article that interviews him in that context: As a parallel, the article Paul Offit states in the lead 'He is one of the most public faces of the scientific consensus that vaccines have no association with autism, and has, as a result, attracted controversy and a substantial volume of hate mail and occasional death threats'. Does anyone else think this article ought to say something similar? Robofish (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Broadly, yes. The article currently suffers from equivocal support for science, giving too much credence to "Individuals and groups opposed to the scientific consensus" who should be shown more clearly as industry interests and tiny minority views. There's been a shortage of good sources, the article you link to covers significant issues. . dave souza, talk 21:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Mann's share of Nobel Peace prize?
I think we need a better source than the Penn State investigation, or at least a quote from that doc in the footnote. Since this has become somewhat controversial. Anyone? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure just what you're questioning here. Mann was an author of the IPCC Third Assessment Report. The prize was awarded to the IPCC for work done 1990-2007, so that would include him. His bio at Penn State accurately notes: 2007     Co-awarded (along with several hundred other scientists) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for involvement in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (lead author of chapter 2 of the Third Assessment Report, 2001).
 * Whether or not mentioning that in the infobox is undue weight will have to be sorted out by the editors who work on this BLP. Yopienso (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll change to that source, which is more readily verifiable. It does seem that mentiion of an award shared by "several hundred other scientists" might be questioned per WP:WEIGHT. --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really seem like an improvement to me in the infobox:
 * Member of IPCC that shared 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with several hundred other scientists
 * I had tweaked it to:
 * Member of IPCC that shared Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore
 * This is more accurate but too long:
 * One of several hundred other scientists who were members of the IPCC that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore
 * I think Member of IPCC that shared Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore is the best of the three for an infobox.
 * The Peace Prize that year went to the IPCC and Al Gore. Mann was one of the eight "lead authors," but not of the two "coordinating lead authors" that wrote one of the Assessment Reports (the 3rd) that were part of the IPCC's work for which it was recognized. Look here, under the Chapter 2 subheading. Rajendra K. Pachauri was the chairperson of the IPCC and gave the Nobel Lecture. Photo with Gore. Yopienso (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Accuracy is important, it was awarded jointly, not shared with Gore. The wording in his cv is "2007       Co-awarded (with other IPCC report authors) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize". The Nobel statement is "The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr." so have tweaked it to "Co-awarded with other IPCC report authors 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, jointly with Al Gore" and have added the 2012 Hans Oeschger Medal. . . dave souza, talk 10:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great job, Dave! Yopienso (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Update on FOI request for Mann's UVA emails
Washington Post article by Tom Jackman, 04/17/2012. Interesting story about the first hearing by the new judge on the case. --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Add book review?
99.181.146.141 (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Recent titles heat up the debate over global warming. Point man Michael E. Mann’s book is among recent releases to examine the clash of science and politics. by the Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin
 * What (to add), Where (in the article), and Why? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As below, this can be a source used in The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, and belongs there rather than in this bio. . . dave souza, talk 09:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
User:Dhawk790 has started a stub on The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. To comply with Naming conventions (books) I've moved it to The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. All good quality or notable reviews should go there, we've currently got three in the external links section of this article which belong in the article on the book. I'll move them, and as and when time permits will aim to develop the stub accordingly. . dave souza, talk 09:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. "Notable" (meaning "important", rather than WP:NOTABLE) reviews may be listed in an article about the book, but rarely in articles about the author of the book or the author of the review.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Added info regarding Mann's recent lawsuit, properly cited. Mann's propensity to improperly call himself a Nobel laureate has been discussed below. Belonging to an organization that won the Nobel Prize does not make you a Nobel laureate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.161.34 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Defamation lawsuit
Mann has launched a lawsuit against two individuals, Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn as well as two organizations, National Review and CEI. This is going to be a very high profile lawsuit. Is it appropriate to cover it here as a main point of documenting the event or would it be better as a separate page and a summary section here? Note, let's put aside the contentious issues for this section and just deal with the logistics of where to write about it for now. TMLutas (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be "going to be a very high profile lawsuit", but we can't cover it on Wikipedia until reliable sources cover it.
 * The Legal Times (now part of the National Law Review), itself is probably a reliable source, but we may not use the text of the complaint, even if it were well-written, as a source. If the Legal Times offered commentary on the lawsuit (even if elsewhere on the blog), that might be a source for the information.  As an aside, I noticed a probable error of law and one of fact on the first several pages of the complaint.  I could be wrong about the errors of law in paragraphs 8 (probably minor there), 10, and 11, but paragraph 17 contains a libelous statement about the Nobel Committee that Mann "shared the Nobel Peace Prize ..."  And some of the other paragraphs of the complaint are irrelevant due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. But we can't use those statements, either, until a reliable source comments on them.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Legal experts say [Mann] stands a shot at getting at least part of his libel case heard by a judge and jury, but he is likely to face an uphill battle if the case ever makes it to trial."
 * http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/10/climate-scientist-mann-faces-obs.html?ref=hp
 * "An interesting twist in this case is the fact that Mann filed his suit in D.C. Superior Court, which means it is subject to the District’s anti-SLAPP suit law which makes it particularly difficult to maintain libel and defamation suits. Alison Frankel explains:"
 * http://www.volokh.com/2012/10/25/mann-v-steyn-the-defendants-respond/
 * —WWoods (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, go for it. In keeping with my policy of treating editorial comments as not necessarily reliable, the second one appears not be reliable except for the statements of the defendants and the existance of the lawsuit.  But the first one looks good. For the record, the legal points seem good to me.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On the latter source, the author is Jonathan H. Adler, and according to that page "From 1991 to 2000, Adler worked at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market research and advocacy group in Washington, D.C.," and of course one of the defendants in this case. One that has been promoting accusations against Mann since November 2003, if not earlier. The page also indicates that Adler has considerable credentials in the field of environmental law . . dave souza, talk 19:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's correct, it looks like it fails WP:SPS, to the extent it makes statements about Mann. Now, not all comments about the lawsuit are comments about Mann.... — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Adler also has history for his support of tobacco companies: see Camel hunting with the FTC, i.e., defending the Joe Camel campaign, the most successful effort in American history designed to get children to smoke and earlier than the competition to get the brand lockin effect. CEI of course has long been a recipient of tobacco money.  See Thanks to Philip Morris and Beg RJ Reynolds for more money.JohnMashey (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I notice that nobody so far has weighed in on the issue of the section, whether it should be covered here or in a separate page. You've gone RS diving exclusively instead. Are you all stuck in a rut? Again, is a section in Mann's personal page more appropriate to cover the lawsuit or should this be broken out into its own page? To make it more interesting, should we cover the Canadian lawsuit (Mann vs. Ball) filed by Mann as well? TMLutas (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The question of whether it should be covered at all needs to be addressed. If it is covered, it probably should be on this page, especially since the Canadian lawsuit would also be appropriate.  Michael E. Mann lawsuits is probably not an appropriate article name.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, a brief mention of this lawsuit is appropriate in the #CRU email controversy section, which should also note the ATI lawsuit and its outcome. We should possibly also note Mann's libel suit against Tim Ball, but I've not found any reliable sources for that. . . dave souza, talk 11:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Calendar
Is this the place to suggest a minor coda to the main article? queries Autochthony. Seems Professor Michael E. Mann received a CostCo calendar, and took to Twitter. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/22/too-funny-i-send-mike-mann-a-free-wuwt-calendar-as-a-christmas-gift-and-he-goes-full-conspiracy-theory/ refers. Autochthony wrote, 2210 Z 25th December 2012. [And happy Xmas to all, please. May your New Year be Happy and Healthy,too.] 86.171.218.117 (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:BLP policy with particular regard to the quality of sources: Watts' conspiracy theories are irrelevant and offtopic, particularly when published in his blog. . . dave souza, talk 22:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Autochthony writes: - Dave Souza - thanks - are you the  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dave_souza  - if so, glad to meet a fellow seafarer. Thanks for your attention: - WUWT - a blog? - possibly, but an award-winning one. Not sure if an apparently accurate depiction of a response to receipt of a gift is a conspiracy theory. Is that relevant? I was hoping to contribute to a wider sense of the Professor Mann's humanity. Is that wrong? Autochthony wrote. 2345 z 25th December 2012. Above wishes apply, of course. 86.171.218.117 (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize
This entry is confusing, and probably wrong in regards to Mann and the Nobel Peace Prize. While the main body of the entry states that Mann was a member of the IPCC when the IPCC was awarded the Peace Prize, an editor went entirely too far with this statement, contained in the biographical data box under Mann's picture: "Co-awarded with other IPCC report authors 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, jointly with Al Gore." That statement is wrong. Mann was not "co-awarded" the Nobel Peace Prize. The IPCC was given the Nobel Peace Prize, but no individual member is considered a recipient and Mann is not entitled to call himself a Nobel Laureate, even though some media sources erroneously refer to him as such. In response to an inquiry specifically regarding Mann's "Nobel Laureate" status, the Nobel Committee stated this: "An award of the Nobel Prize to an organization does not under any circumstances permit an employee or other agent of that organization to claim to share a Nobel Prize. Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize." I don't believe Mann was explicitly named in the citation, thus the claim that he was "co-awarded" the prize with other authors is wrong, period. The quote needs to be rewritten to remove the ambiguity. Mann is not a Nobel Laureate. Moreover, Mann is now suing Mark Steyn for calling out Mann over his repeated false claims of "sharing a Nobel Prize", and there should be a mention of this in the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.112.148 (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The following source is pertinent to my above comment http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/lord-monckton-nobel-prize/   . It is an article about another member of the IPCC who decided to call himself a Nobel Laureate, Lord Monckton. Obviously it is not Mann, but the situation is exactly the same. When the Nobel Prize Committee was contacted in regards to an individual member of the IPCC claiming he was also co-awarded the Peace Prize, the Committee member stated the following: "The claim is ridiculous. He is not a Laureate. No way, no way."  He also stated this, and this statement clearly rebuts Mann's claims that he is a Laureate and that he was "co-awarded the Nobel Prize" or that he "shares the award"(a claim that Mann has falsely made, repeatedly):"But the organisation won the prize. Not even Dr Rajendra Pachauri (the chair of the IPCC) is an individual laureate."  As I state in the above comment, Mann was not "co-awarded the Nobel Prize."  Stating that Mann was a member of a committee that was awarded the Prize is a whole hell of a lot different than stating that Mann was "co-awarded with other IPCC report authors..." That statement is most assuredly false, and the entry needs to be changed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.112.148 (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll work on this. Yopienso (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed Co-awarded with other IPCC report authors 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, jointly with Al Gore from the infobox. The rationale is not the purported proof provided above by the IP, since that is unverifiable. It is because the official Nobel Prize website does not say Mann was co-awarded any prize. It says, "The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded 93 times to 124 Nobel Laureates between 1901 and 2012, 100 individuals and 24 organizations." Yopienso (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While "co-awarded" does seem to be common shorthand for members of the IPCC that was awarded the prize, it's technically incorrect. He was personally awarded a plaque showing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Nobel Diploma for 2007, as were the other contributors, and the wording on the plaque as seen elsewhere on the intertubes is "presented to Michael E. Mann for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC". So I've noted that in the article and summarised it in the infobox. Will aim to add a bit more on this, after tea. . . dave souza, talk 18:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK--don't have any peacock sandwiches for tea, though! :-)
 * We want to give Mann his due, but claims must be verifiable. Current footnote #36 is to a self-published source that claims a co-award. It doesn't mention "an individual plaque." If he received one and a RS verifies that, we will say so. Current footnote #37 doesn't work for me, and that dratted Harvard style is undecipherable to me. Can you please point me to the source?
 * I think we should stick to what the Nobel Committee says. I can find no mention of Mann in Ole Danbolt Mjøs' speech, on the diploma, or in any of the official photos. Presumably, he was present at the awards ceremony, but not on the dais, and not in any photo of the audience that I can find.
 * Let's see, as a member of the European Union, I guess you're now a laureate yourself. Congratulations! Yopienso (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Footnote #36 isn't self-published as it's a university page, so should be reasonable as a source. Sorry about the broken link, it should take you to Mann's bio: he was sent the plaque, and it says on it presented. As a lead author he had more input than most into getting the IPCC the award, and it's an honour we should show in relevant bios. As a British subject guess I'm a citizen of the EU, but haven't contributed work to the organisation in the way that all the IPCC lead authors did. There's a bit more to add on this, but not tonight! . . dave souza, talk 21:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Check your email.
 * University faculty bios (and other stuff) are self-published on the university's website. I know that for several reasons, but as evidence, here you see one that is written exuberantly in the first person, at Jesus College, yet. (Compare Ferguson's more formal style. Faculty bios do have the tacit endorsement of the uni;  that's why sometimes we see unis forbidding certain profs to use their website for certain ideas or agendas.) What we need is verification from the Nobel Committee or Nobelprize.org.
 * There's still no link to any plaque. The link now goes to "Selected publications," which I found as an eBook, but only as a preview. Could find nothing about a plaque. Interestingly, and slightly off-topic, Ch. 14 of the book is titled, "Climategate: The Real Story." No scare quotes, even.
 * I see a great deal of likely true but unverifiable stuff has come and gone while I've been eating taco salad and poking around the intertubes for plaques. Still unverified is the claim that "an individual plaque was presented to Michael E. Mann for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC." I believe it's true (although maybe not exactly a plaque), but I believe it was created and sent by the IPCC, not by the Nobel Committee. That distinction must be made, if we can find a RS for it. Here's a picture of it on a non-RS. Yopienso (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Lead author on the IPCC Third Assessment Report, contributed to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC, jointly with Al Gore" is still misleading--he was one of numerous lead authors. Also, the whole thing is too unwieldy for an infobox. The detail about his contribution to the 3rd report and the subsequent prize for the IPCC should be properly, accurately, and verifiably noted in the body of the article.

Also, something should probably be said about his new lawsuit. I've already gone over my WP time budget for today. Yopienso (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The way this reads most people would assume Mann won the Noble Peace Prize. He didn't, the IPCC did. The lead sentence: "He has received a number of honors..." then later the mention of the Peace prize makes it confusing. I think the whole sentence "He was a member of the IPCC jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007." should be removed. Mattsky (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (I am the Tim Osborn who is from the Climatic Research Unit so please bear in mind possible conflicts of interest that I may have with respect to this article.) Including an appropriately worded statement about the Nobel Peace Prize in the main body of the text is arguably reasonable: it was a significant recognition of the IPCC's work and Mann made a notable contribution to its work (along with many others). But it was not an award that he received, so it shouldn't be listed under "Awards" in his biography box.  On the other hand, his election to be a fellow of the AGU is a significant award: "To be elected a Fellow is a special tribute for those who have made exceptional scientific contributions."  This is much more significant than the "AGU Editor's Citation".  So, I'll remove the Nobel Prize and AGU citation from infobox and add the AGU fellow.  All are still covered in the main body. TimOsborn (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mattsky, above. "He was a member of the IPCC that was jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007" should not remain in the introduction. At the end of the day, all he's really got is the recognition of the IPCC. The way it is dealt with in the body of the article is good, it has language along the lines of "following the co-awarding of the Prize to the IPCC, the IPCC recognized..." which quite fairly notes the chronology (the Norwegians recognized the IPCC, the IPCC then recognized Mann and others). The lede currently associates the subject with the Prize awarders when there isn't any evidence that the Prize awarders recognized Mann. Wikipedia should not be implying a "flow through" of recognition through the IPCC when the Prize awarders do not acknowledge any such flow through. From what I can discern, as far as the Norwegians are concerned, there is a full stop at the organization. If so, Wikipedia should not be reaching beyond that by mentioning the Nobel Prize, except in the body of the article where the full particulars and qualifications can be provided.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For clarification, the Nobel Prize is administered by the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm, Swedent, but the diploma refers to "Den Norske Nobelkomite". The prize was presented by Professor Ole Danbolt Mjøs, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, on 12 October 2007. . dave souza, talk 11:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that the lead should be clear and match the body text in showing that the award was to the organisation, and Mann contributed to this as one of many members of the organisation. Will review how best to put that. . . `dave souza, talk – the lead was rather a guddle, so have reorganised it to keep the IPCC stuff together and mention the Nobel prize in context. It should probably also mention Mann's continuing development of reconstruction techniques and the political attacks on his work, will try to expand the article a bit to give these more context. . dave souza, talk 11:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dave S... article is much improved after your edits. The NobelPeacePrize is significant recognition for IPCC and its contributors and so it's important to include it with clear explanation of the Mann-IPCC-Nobel links.  For information, I also removed the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize from the infoboxes of a few other pages about scientists where it was wrongly indicating that it had been awarded to them... there's probably some other cases that I didn't spot. Probably useful to make the issue clear for future reference by explaining it here: 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.  I'll try that if I have time. TimOsborn (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tim, very good of you to say so. Your informed advice about this is greatly appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 22:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the "in recognition of the work of its many members including Mann" clause that follows "awarded the Nobel Peace Prize" in the lede because I believe there should be a citation provided for this particular, additional clause if it remains.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Citations are in the body text, and are not required in the lead which summarises them. Of course, as you said in your edit summary, "A prize to an org is obviously "in recognition of the work of its members" no?" Not all our readers will know that contributing authors are members of the org, working on a voluntary basis. . . . dave souza, talk 06:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Brian D... citations to support the recognition of the scientists are now also given in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize article. Maybe this can be linked directly. TimOsborn (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To the extent it is not obvious (and therefore not redundant) Wikipedia is either adding an disputed interpretation or making an additional claim here, and we have established policies regarding both the need for a citation and how to provide that citation. This is not an accurate summary of what is in the body of the article as the body of the article notes that "Mann received a personalized certificate from the IPCC...", thereby noting more clearly and completely that the recognizing entity was the IPCC.  This dispute could be easily resolved by leaving mention of the Prize to the body of the article.  What is the motivation for bringing this into the lede while simultaneously NOT bringing into the lede the established fact that, rightly or wrongly, the subject has been a controversial figure?--Brian Dell (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, so now you're saying it's obvious, but disputed by some unreliable source. My last edit rephrased it to match more closely the body text. I've suggested above that we should mention the political disputes about his work in the lead, perhaps you'd like to propose suitable wording? . . dave souza, talk 18:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying what I said, which is that if we run with your apparent contention that it is not obvious then in my view it's an additional claim needing additional evidence. I've around Wikipedia long enough to recognize situations whereby the sort of specific changes I think are needed are going to have to wait until another editor is prepared to take a more welcoming view of the general approach motivating the specific changes.  The "general approach" of myself and some others re the Nobel Peace Prize is that this person did not win it.  However, when you are edit warring to have the article include the information that this person received something that had "a copy" of the Prize on it you are evidently not especially sympathetic to the "general approach" there (or, presumably, elsewhere when the portrayal of the subject is similarly at issue).--Brian Dell (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As the IPCC now says, "The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.” The IPCC leadership agreed to present personalized certificates “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC” to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma, were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points."

The IPCC thus distinguishes between lead authors as "scientists that had contributed substantially", and contributing authors who contributed less substantially: Mann was identified as having contributed substantially, and our current wording properly reflects that. Regarding the "general approach" of yourself "and some others re the Nobel Peace Prize is that this person did not win it", we're careful not to say that he did: we follow the above guidance and say that As a scientist who had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports, Mann received a personalized certificate from the IPCC for "contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC", information that also appears on the letter he received from the IPCC and put up on his Facebook page. . . . dave souza, talk 19:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In the article's current wording it is not that IPCC that "distinguishes," however, it is Wikipedia. I should think what is currently quoted could stand without embellishment if the IPCC's voice is not being added to.  Re "careful not to say", in the recent election the Romney campaign aired an ad that was careful not to say that Jeep was cutting jobs in the USA to send to China.  That didn't mean that most "fact checkers" didn't take exception to what was being "implied" or "suggested".  Wikipedia's responsibiity is to general credibility, not a lawyerly "careful not to say" standard.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not adding to the IPCC's voice, we're reiterating their standard for awarding the certificate. Mann and all the other lead authors were members of the IPCC who made a substantial contribution to its work – do you have a reliable source disputing that? Your reminiscences about election advertising are completely irrelevant here. . . dave souza, talk 21:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Somebody may need to tweak my correction. User ThePowerofX changed "and that of each of its several hundred other members" to "each of its several hundred other members." That's just not right. See here: About 2000 personalized copies of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize together with a letter of Dr R.K. Pachauri have been sent worldwide to Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Review Editors, Bureau members, staff of Technical Support Units and of the Secretariat, who have contributed substantially to the work of the IPCC of the last 20 years. Yopienso (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I simply removed "several hundred" (diff) leaving The IPCC acknowledged that his work, and that of each of its other members, contributed to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. "Other members" is self-explanatory. Not sure what is to be gained by numerating group members and describing their function. — ThePowerofX 18:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the "each" that is erroneous. If you read my edit summary and follow the link I provided, you'll see about 2000 of the 10,000 contributors received the IPCC certificate. There may be more members than contributors; I wouldn't know.
 * Oh, but now I see what you mean--the question is over the word "acknowledge," which I am, perhaps wrongly, interpreting as "sent a certificate to." The IPCC did acknowledge in an open letter that each had contributed. I leave this to those with more wisdom and time than I do settle. Yopienso (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize 2

 * I have to agree with this edit and the rationale behind it.  Mann has publicly claimed to be a Nobel Laureate and it is not our place to whitewash that or provide support for it. μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, your assertion is questionable and the edit focussed on a negative spin inappropriate in WP:BLP, , , dave souza, talk 08:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest the following as a compromise that maintains Mann's integrity and is informative to our readers, clearing up questions some may have because of the assertions of numerous members of the IPCC that they shared in or were recipients of the prize. Yopienso (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".[Ref here to http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/.] In recognition of his substantial contribution to the preparation of their reports, the IPCC issued Mann a personalized certificate featuring a copy of the diploma. All coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat received similar certificates; none is considered to be a Nobel winner personally. In his 2012 book Mann noted an IPCC meeting in 2009 celebrating the prize, where Working Group 1 co-chair Susan Solomon highlighted the personal sacrifice that he and Benjamin D. Santer had made in the name of the IPCC.

I made the edit in qustion. I have not personally investigated the question of whether Mann claimed to be a Nobel laureate, so I don't have any opinion on that. But since the question of whether he is a laureate is a simple and undisputable one, I was merely giving a straightforward answer to that question, which is no doubt in the minds of many people who are currently visiting the page. Would you consider the IPCC press release to be giving him a "negative spin"? I'm sure that wasn't their intention, and it wasn't mine either. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 13:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I'm sure you had no ill intention, use of the word "although" at the start of the paragraph immediately puts Wikipedia in the position of questioning the award of the certificate. We make no claim that he's a laureate or a Nobel Prize winner, we accurately describe the certificate's wording: "contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC". your knowledge of the minds of many people who are currently visiting the page.seems questionable at best. . . . dave souza, talk 21:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think of my suggestion? I've waxed bold enough to strike out a detail I've never thought should be included because it is unencyclopedic.
 * The fact that the IPCC saw fit to address the issue with a letter and leave it posted on their site (bottom right-hand corner) indicates there has been public interest in the question; Smyth's guess is not so dubious. Yopienso (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While there has undoubtedly been public interest in the blogosphere, we don't accept that as a suitable area of sourcing for biographies. I've been thinking over your proposal, the detail of why the IPCC was given the award seems to me to distract rather than assist, and is appropriately covered in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize article. I do think your sequence works better than Smyth's version. The IPCC wording is that "The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner." It makes more sense to me to cover the first sentence of that rather than the "what we're not to call them" aspect. As you'll guess, I do think the highlighting by Solomon is significant, though it's phrased in that way because our source is Mann's book. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wherever the public interest was expressed, it was sufficient to move the IPCC to action, and that action in itself seems significant. I don't object to trimming, but in the first paragraph of the awards section we note what they were given for; I don't know why we wouldn't for this one.
 * An observation like Solomon's could be made for any person who has worked on any big project; including it seems like overkill to me; it reminds me of the U.S. senator from Alaska who listed on her official senate website that she had been the president of the PTA at her son's school. So insignificant!
 * But including or deleting either of those is of no great importance to me; what is important to me is clarifying that Mann is not a Nobel laureate. Yopienso (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Solomon's observation makes sense in the historical context that Santer came under vociferous press and contrarian attack for the wording of the 1995 IPCC SAR, and Mann came under similar attack after the 2001 IPCC TAR featured his graph. These were the two individuals singled out by contrarians, others did not get the same attention. . . dave souza, talk 09:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I cannot see any way of doing that without including some kind of "negative" word. Saying someone is not a Nobel laureate is hardly a criticism. I am happy with Yopienso's version, but the Solomon sentence needs a better source. Its intention clearly is to stress Mann's significance over and above the other 2000 people who were involved. If he does deserve that significance, then you will be able to find a source that wasn't written by himself. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 05:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope you find the wording sufficiently clear that the award was to the IPCC as an organisation and not to individuals. As above, there are good reasons for the significance and plenty of sources highlighting Mann's contribution, so Solomon's observation makes sense. The book is a reliable source for Mann's views, and it's shown as such. . . dave souza, talk 09:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The passage is really quite silly as written, is very childish, and indeed confusing. I clarified the fact he did not actually win a Nobel Prize. Wheels of Steal (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I appreciate your wish for an adult passage, It's better to start with the IPCC certificate and then make it clear that the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organisation, and the prize was not an award to any individual involved with the IPCC, so I've put that in and have also restored mention of the significant point that these certificates were issued by the IPCC to scientists who had made a substantial contribution to the preparation of IPCC reports. Hope that meets your concerns. . . . dave souza, talk 09:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but "Mann received a personalized certificate from the IPCC..." sounds like something from an infommercial; kind of embarrasing and not very encyclopedic. Wheels of Steal (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "The IPCC leadership agreed to present personalized certificates", so I've changed the wording to "The IPCC presented Mann with a personalized certificate",, dave souza, talk 08:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC) p.s An editor has expressed a concern that User:Wheels of Steal may be a sock puppet of Scibaby. . dave souza, talk 08:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's Scibaby again, and part of an entire sock farm (see ). The account is now blocked so I don't see any point continuing the present discussion. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Blatant whitewashing
I will continue putting this on the talk page, even if someone keeps deleting it. This entry is wholly inadequate in regards to Mann's history of distorting his achievements, particularly his Nobel Laureate status. He is currently suing multiple people in Federal court, including author and columnist Mark Steyn. The reason for Mann's suit? His claims that Steyn, and others, libeled him by stating he isn't entitled to call himself a Nobel Laureate. Steyn has called Mann a liar; the record has proven as much. Yet there is not a single sentence, not a single word, concerning this court case in the entry. There is not a single sentence dedicated to Mann's falsehoods regarding his Nobel Laureate status. The guy falsely claimed for years that he was a Laureate. Not a single mention of this is made in the entry. As the above Nobel Prize talk section makes clear, the controversy surrounding this issue obviously exists, and it is the job of an encyclopedia to include this information, particularly in regards to Mann suing people because they had the temerity to call him a liar. But rather than a mention of this controversy, we get a Mann apologist informing us it is the job of Wikipedia to strike some sort of balance in order to maintain Mann's reputation. An editor actually argues that edits concerning Mann's Nobel status have to strike some sort of balance that allows Mann to "maintain his integrity". Using a supposedly unbiased encyclopedia in this manner is wholly unacceptable. The entry needs to be changed to reflect the controversy over Mann's Nobel status and a mention needs to be made of his lawsuit against Mark Steyn, Rand Simberg, the Heartland Institute and others. As it stands now, someone unfamiliar with this whole episode, after reading this entry, would have no clue that any controversy surrounded this issue. Instead we get a blatant whitewash and the hyping of a certificate that Mann, along with dozens of others, was rewarded. So instead of covering the controversy, we get a bunch of pablum telling us all how special Mann supposedly is.74.138.45.132 (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Without going into your other dubious comments, your statement "The reason for Mann's suit? His claims that Steyn, and others, libeled him by stating he isn't entitled to call himself a Nobel Laureate" is blatantly false: it's not what it says in the court document you quote below. . dave souza, talk 03:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The following statement appears in Michael Mann's Wikipedia entry: "The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organisation, and the prize was not an award to any individual involved with the IPCC."
 * The source for this sentence? A statement released by the IPCC FIVE YEARS after it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. However, for some odd reason, the author of the entry doesn't tell us why the IPCC felt the need to release such a statement. The reason? It had been contacted by numerous journalists, including Charles Cooke of National Review(one of the organizations sued by Mann), asking for a clarification of Mann's Nobel status. None of this is mentioned in the entry. Rather the "author" seems to be trying to give the impression that the IPCC released such a statement five years after the fact so we could all know how awesome Michael Mann is because he received a "certificate" that was awarded to approximately 2000 people. The reason this information is omitted? To "maintain [Mann's] integrity", as if protecting Mann's reputation is the job of an objective encyclopedia. Nor are we told about Mann's lawsuit against Mark Steyn, National Review, Rand Simberg and others. Why are we not told about this information? I don't know for certain, but I suspect it is because it has been uncovered that Mann's legal complaint explicitly, and falsely, claims, in it at least separate two places, that Mann was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. So we have a situation in which a notable defamation lawsuit is omitted for the likely reason it would reveal unflattering information about Mann. And, to reiterate, we have an editor who has specifically stated that Mann's reputation must be protected, so nary a word of the lawsuit or the real reason for the IPCC statement is included in this entry. Instead we get asinine, laughable assertions on the talk page that Mann never claimed he was a Nobel Laureate, despite the fact that the dust jacket for his book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines makes the claim that Mann won the Nobel Peace Prize. Mann was so insistent he was a Nobel Laureate that he actually makes that very claim in the legal filing for his defamation case.  The following quotes are taken directly from the legal complaint filed by Mann on October 22, 2012(note this date and the date the IPCC issued its statement cited in reference 39) with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division:
 * 1. "...As a result of this research, DR. MANN AND HIS COLLEAGUES WERE AWARDED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE"(emphasis mine). This quote is taken from point #2 of his legal complaint.
 * 2. "In 2007, DR. MANN SHARED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE with other IPCC authors for their work in climate change..."(emphasis mine). This quote is taken from point #17 of his legal complaint. The entire complaint can be found at the following link: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf

These statements are a matter of public record. It is simply impossible to argue that Mann didn't falsely claim that he was a Nobel Laureate; the claim was on the dust jacket of one of his books, for Christ sake. The false claims are legion and one can find links to numerous sources after spending about two minutes on Google. Including even the barest mention of this controversy and the lawsuit is not an example of "negative spin" as one particular "editor" has maintained, rather it is an objective statement of fact. The only one engaging in spin is the person who has explicitly stated that he has edited this entry in order to protect Mann's "integrity", as if that is Wikipedia's purpose. The sacrificing of the the truth in order to salvage Mann's reputation and "maintain his integrity" has led to the absolutely ludicrous implication that the IPCC issued a clarifying statement in order to let us know how super-awesome Mann is because he won some certificate, rather than to clear up the fact that Mann is not, despite his repeated claims to the contrary, a Nobel Laureate. And as I make clear in an above comment, if someone keeps trying to remove a discussion that is pertinent to the entry on ridiculous BLP grounds, I will continue to put the comments back onto the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.45.132 (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We need a single reliable source for Mann's idiotic statements. the truth, and the connection between them. If that is provided, it probably should be in the article.  (And court documents &mdash; even decisions &mdash; are not adequate, per WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH.)  If sourced statements critical of Mann are provided, we can discuss details.  If no such statements are provided, we really shouldn't discuss it, even on the talk page.
 * However, even if the above IP is the sock of a blocked editor, he does make a good point, and I want it discussed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, I am not, nor have I ever been, a "blocked editor", nor am I a "sock". I have never posted under any other name, ever. But hey, this is Wikipedia, so casual smears don't really matter, do they?74.138.45.132 (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I didn't mean to imply that you are Scibaby, even though others might. Although a native English speaker, I don't know a good way to say "I don't know whether X is true, but even if it is, then Y."  If I were to say "if ... were the sock of a blocked editor", I would be implying that X is false.  I wasn't intending to imply the X is true.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if one still argues with a straight face that Mann never claimed he was a Nobel Laureate, one cannot argue that he has not filed a lawsuit against Steyn, National Review, etc.  EVen if one doesn't mention Mann's repeated falsehoods concerning his Nobel status, there should be at least a mention of the lawsuit. Why isn't there?  As I mention above, I suspect it is because that would raise the issue of Mann's erroneous claims to be a Nobel Laureate contained within his legal complaint.  After all, as two parties to the lawsuit, National Review and Mark Steyn, make clear, they didn't really start asking questions about Mann's Laureate status until after he filed the complaint; this is why I pointed out the dates the lawsuit was filed and the IPCC statement regarding the Laureate status of individual IPCC members.  Another editor points out the need for reliable sources. Here is at least one:  http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/23/climate-scientist-michael-mann-sues-over-comparison-to-child-molester/ 74.138.45.132 (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fox News is notoriously unreliable, better is needed for a WP:BLP. dave souza, talk 03:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here we go with the bullshit that Fox News is not a reliable source. Sorry, but Fox is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia, whether you like it or not. But fine, I will oblige your bullshit request. I can't wait to read the hilarious reason as to why the Washington Post is not a reliable source: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-23/local/35500704_1_climate-change-national-review-jerry-sandusky  Of particular note is the reference to Mann as a Nobel Prize winner. Hmm, I wonder whose serial lying on that issue gave the Post that now-debunked(as made clear by the subsequent IPCC statement)false impression?  PS That question is rhetorical74.138.45.132 (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, the WaPo is better but it doesn't support your overblown allegations. The "serial lying" all seems to be coming from the defendants in the case, whose views you seem to be promoting. . . dave souza, talk 04:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is hard to take seriously an attack on my motivations coming from someone who has explicitly stated that he is out to protect Mann's "integrity", as if such a motive accords with the purpose of an objective encyclopedia.. The fact is that Mann called himself a Nobel Laureate on his Penn State website, on his books, in his press releases and in his legal filings.  There is a reason the IPCC felt compelled to issue a statement five years after it was awarded the Nobel Prize, and it has nothing to do with a bunch of certificates as you imply. Unfortunately, those unacquainted with this controversy have no way of knowing about Mann's actions if they only visit Wikipedia. Why? Because you saw to it that anything damaging to Mann's "integrity" was removed.   Sorry, but you can't explain this stuff away no matter how much you try. Mann's press releases in which he calls himself a "Nobel Prize winner" are a matter of public record, as are his legal filings. Your attempts to whitewash Mann's recorda are as pathetic as they are transparent. If someone else won't include the information concerning the lawsuit and Mann's repeated false claims of being a Nobel Laureate, I will add them to the entry myself, despite my distaste for editing entries. The writing of an encyclopedia should not be left to someone who has made clear that he considers the protection of Mann's reputation to be of paramount importance.74.138.45.132 (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm afraid Fox News is considered reliable, per a number of discussions at WP:RSN. Still, none of the sources yet presented support the anon's desired text, or, as far as I can tell, mention the Nobel claims as being a matter of controversy.  The separate sources that M says he is a "Nobel Laureate", and various other parties say he isn't, can't be combined in the article unless a single' reliable sources says both.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I made clear in an above comment, even if one claims that Mann has not stated he was a Nobel Laureate, or if one claims there is no controversy around those claims (I guess the IPCC decided to issue a statement five years after the fact just for the hell of it)that is no reason to leave out information concerning his lawsuit against National Review, among others. The lawsuit merits a mention, regardless of whether anything anyone has written about Mann's false Nobel claims have any merit at all.  I have yet to read a suitable justification for leaving out the information concerning such a lawsuit, though I have made clear what I believe are the motives for such an omission.  And whether the sources provided are technically suitable under Wikipedia standards or not, Mann has clearly lied about his Nobel status. His own Facebook page contains those lies: https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/437351706321037
 * I am not certain if this source is considered reliable(I believe it is), but near the end you will find a discussion of Mann's false claims and the Nobel Committee statement that Mann was not entitled to call himself a Nobel Peace Prize winner. There is also a lengthy discussion of the lawsuit against Steyn, National Review etc. http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/07/52068.htm 74.138.45.132 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if one is willing to concede that the issues surrounding Mann's false claims don't rise to the level of "controversy", the above-linked Courthouse News article should put to rest the notion that the Nobel Committee didn't, in the word of the article, "repudiate" Mann for his false claims. Reliable sources have been provided in regards to both the lawsuit and the falsehood of Mann's statements. There is no longer any excuse, other than the bogus one concerning the protection of Mann's "integrity", as to why these things should not be mentioned in the entry, even if the mention is brief.74.138.45.132 (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're misreading the sources you present. In your own terms, you're lying. This is focussing on a minor aspect of a court case filed more than six months ago, one which has had very little or no coverage since. . . dave souza, talk 05:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. The only one lying is you. The source I provide,  Courthouse News, states the following: "Though MANN CLAIMS IN HIS COMPLAINT THAT HE WAS AWARDED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE in 2007 for his research on global warming, one of the actual 2007 winners recently repudiated that claim"(emphasis mine). And my misrepresentation is what, exactly? I specifically state in my above comment that even if this doesn't rise to the level of what some would consider a controversy(although the IPCC clearly believes it has risen to a level in which it feels the need to issue a clarifying statement five years after the fact), Mann has falsely claimed he was a Nobel Laureate and both the Nobel Committee and the IPCC, in its November statement, have claimed otherwise. You remember that statement, don't you? After all, you are the one who wrote about it in the entry, though you make no mention as to why the IPCC felt it was necessary to issue such a statement, other than to hilariously imply that they did so in order to recognize various individuals with a "personalized certificate".  The source that I quote makes it abundantly clear that Mann was "repudiated", to use their word,  for his falsehoods.  As for the Washington Post article, I didn't misread a source, I merely surmised what everyone who isn't a Mann lackey already knows: he is almost assuredly the source of the bogus assertion that he is a Nobel Prize winner; it surely wasn't the IPCC who gave various media outlets that impression.  If it wasn't Mann, who did? Only one other person from the IPCC Committee, Lord Monckton, has ever claimed he was a Nobel Laureate. Apparently everyone else, except Mann, knew better. But proving Mann's loose association with the truth is not why I cited the Washington Post. I referenced that article in order to make it plain that Mann is indeed involved in a court case, even though one would be completely ignorant of that fact if he relied solely on Wikipedia as his source of information about Mann.   As for that court case, the reason it hasn't had much coverage is because it is still in the preliminary stages, genius. No testimony has even been given in the case. But hey, nice attempt at burying any  mention of the case. And by nice, I mean lame. A defamation case filed by Mann is notable, whether you like it or not, and the fact that the case has been mentioned by Fox News(a source you wrongly claim is not considered reliable by Wikipedia), The Washington Post, Forbes, Scientific American and numerous other sources easily disproves your farcical bullshit, which is precisely what your claims are.  And regardless of whether there is a raging controversy or not,  a reliable source, as clearly demonstrated by the quote I just produced,  has noted that Mann falsely claimed he was a Nobel Laureate and the Nobel Committee and the IPCC have stated such is not the case. No one is misrepresenting anything, other than you. For clarity, I will reproduce the quote. Here it is: "Though Mann claims in his complaint that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his research on global warming, one of the actual 2007 winners recently repudiated that claim."   Here we have in language that is plain as can be a statement that Mann FALSELY claimed he was a Nobel Prize winner and the response from the IPCC (the "winner" mentioned in the quote)that he isn't. Your assertion that I am lying or misrepresenting the sources is pathetic. The "complaint" mentioned in that quote is the one to which I link in another comment; the text of the complaint can be read in full at this site: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf . In points #2, 5 and 17, Mann claims he is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.  But the exact text of the complaint is irrelevant because I have produced a reliable source detailing how Mann was repudiated by both the IPCC and the Nobel Committee.  You can't explain this away, no matter how hard you try to resort to Wikipedia legalese in order to try and spike it. You aren't just grasping at straws, you are grabbing the whole fuc*ing bale. As I suspected all along, it is becoming increasingly clear why you want no mention of this case in the entry, even though it was Mann, the person for whom you have advocated in the "pages" of a supposedly objective encyclopedia, who filed it. It is because any mention of the case will necessarily lead to a mention of the Courthouse News story and the revelation that Mann made false statements in his legal complaint.  That this is your motive has become abundantly obvious.  First you claimed in the talk section that any mention of Mann's false claims  were untrue (yeah, that's been pretty well disproved) and amounted to "negative spin" as if merely relaying an objective fact is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. Then, when that wasn't enough to bury discussion of the lawsuit and Mann's false statements, you started deleting entire sections of the talk page. When it became apparent I was just going to keep reposting the same exact comments regardless of how many times you deleted them, you resorted to the wholly predictable "Fox News is not a reliable source" bullshit, a "defense" I knew you would use as soon as I pasted the link. Now you are calling me a liar, even though I have directly quoted a source detailing how Mann was repudiated for falsely claiming he is a Nobel Laureate in a legal complaint filed for a lawsuit about which you don't want a single word to appear in the entry. However, what you want doesn't matter anymore. I have provided multiple sources that illustrate the fact that Mann has indeed initiated a defamation lawsuit against Mark Steyn and National Review, among others, and a reliable source that fits the criteria laid out by another commenter who stipulated that a single reliable source would need to mention both Mann's false claims and their repudiation by the IPCC and the Nobel Committee.  As I mention in another comment, if someone else doesn't add this information to the entry, I will.  In closing I will simply reiterate how pathetic the "little or no coverage" defense is, as if a court case that has been mentioned by numerous reliable sources requires continuous coverage in order to merit a one or two sentence mention in an online encyclopedia.  I would also like to add that if this comment is deleted, I will simply add it back to the talk page again.74.138.45.132 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Read your source again. The Nobel Committee didn't "repudiate" Mann, the IPCC issued a clarification of its earlier statement. You're also completely wrong about the IPCC's earlier statements  and about whether others made the same claim as Mann. This is a trivial aspect of the court case, which is of questionable significance to Mann's bio. You're the one misrepresenting sources and trying to give this undue weight. Oh, and instead of attacking my motives you should read WP:NPA. dave souza, talk 07:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, your claims would have a modicum of merit if you could us tell why exactly, five years after the fact, the IPCC felt the need to issue a statement in regards to the Nobel status of individual IPCC members.  As I mention in other comments, various individuals, such as Timothy Richards and Charles Cooke, asked the IPCC and the Nobel Committee specifically about Mann's status. These inquiries were made after Mann filed his lawsuit on October 22, 2012. Those individuals started asking questions in the weeks afterwards. The IPCC then issued its clarifying statement in early November. Hmm, I wonder why? If there is another reason, why does this not appear in the entry? Instead we are merely told a clarifying statement was made without any explanation, AT ALL, given.  There is a reason why the Courthouse News article uses the word "repudiate" in regards to Mann's claims. The meaning of that word is fairly obvious. And in another comment I state that Mann and Lord Monckton have falsely claimed they were Nobel Laureates. If I am wrong in that regard, why don't you enlighten us as to who else has falsely made this claim.  As for the charge that I am giving the accusations undue weight, it is hard to believe anyone would make such an argument. I can think of no one else whose biography would not contain a mention of the fact that he filed a lawsuit and lied about his Nobel status in the legal filing. Anyone who knows anything about the case(that would clearly not include you) already knows that Mann's opponents are using his false claims to bolster their defense against his defamation lawsuit. The assertion that someone lying in a legal document for a case he filed doesn't merit a mention is so ludicrous it is barely deserved of a response.  This very entry at one time repeated Mann's false claim that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and if I am not mistaken, MANN'S VERY OWN WEB PAGE WAS USED AS ONE OF THE SOOURCES FOR HIS BIOGRAPHICAL DATA. The fact that he won the award was notable, but his lies about it aren't? Yeah, whatever you say.  One or two sentences concerning these lies constitutes undue weight? Uh huh, sure thing. Even more ridiculous is the fact that you seem to want to confine the discussion of Mann's lies to the court case, as if Mann didn't lie on his Facebook page(a link to this particular lie is included in an above comment),  his book jacket, his Penn State bio, etc, etc. etc. If I went to the talk page of the entry for any other individual on Wikipedia and made the claim that such an illustrious history of lying, a history that included lying in court documents, doesn't even merit one sentence in an entry, I would be laughed off the page. And even if one completely ignores the lengthy(at least five years) history of falsehoods coming from Mann concerning his Nobel Laureate "status", as you seem intent on doing, there is absolutely no excuse, at all, for there being no mention of a defamation suit Mann filed against various individuals and media outlets, including a best-selling author and the most influential conservative magazine in the United States. And I will repeat, for the umpteenth time, that it seems pretty obvious nothing has been written about the case because it would lead to a mention of the revelation that Mann lied in court documents, an action that isn't merely a "minor incident". And regardless of how much bullshit you write about me being "completely wrong" about what the sources say, the Courthouse News article clearly states, with no ambiguity, that Mann's filings in his defamation suit clearly contain the false claim he is a Nobel Laureate.  That information would have to be included in this entry.   In closing, I would like to mention that a Wikipedia entry entitled "Nobel Prize Controversies" includes the following statement: "Separately, an individual working for the IPCC at the time, Michael E. Mann has generated controversy by claiming to be a prize winner in a 2012 court filing for a defamation suit." Something similar needs to be included in Mann's entry. As a commenter has succinctly explained in a sub-section entitled "Remarks and a suggestion" that appears directly below this comment, Mann's history of misleading statements concerning his Nobel status is well-known and there is indeed a controversy swirling around this issue, despite claims otherwise being made on the talk page, and denying as  much is ridiculous, as is not including a mention of this in his Wikipedia entry.74.138.45.132 (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOR. . dave souza, talk 14:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't need to rely on original research. Various sources have stated that Mann has filed a lawsuit against multiple parties. A reliable source states that Mann lied in his court filings. Those are undisputed facts. They are going to find their way into the entry whether you like it or not and I am done arguing with you on this point. Every other word I wrote concerning the reason for the IPCC clarification, the Nobel Committee correspondences with various individuals vociferously disputing Mann's claims and Mann's history of lying could be pure speculation that I decided to make up off the top of my head(although anyone reading this knows otherwise) and that still doesn't change the facts that: a)there are multiple reliable sources that discuss the court case and b) at least one of those sources mentions Mann's false statements in regards to his Nobel status and the ensuing, TO USE THEIR WORD, "repudiation" of Mann by the IPCC.  As I state, everything else I wrote could be a deliberate fabrication and it wouldn't change the facts I just elucidated, which is why the mention of the court case and the false legal filings are inevitable and also why I am done arguing with you on this; if no one else mentions those things in the entry, I will.74.138.45.132 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 74.138.45.132, your claims are, for the most part, bullshit.
 * The reason for Mann's suit? His claims that Steyn, and others, libeled him by stating he isn't entitled to call himself a Nobel Laureate. - Not true. And since you linked to the original complaint it's apparent that you knew your statement was false.
 * Steyn has called Mann a liar; the record has proven as much. - also false.
 * [Mann] falsely claimed for years that he was a Laureate. - you have a source for that, because given your prior statements I'm disinclined to believe you.
 * controversy surrounding this issue obviously exists - plenty, but the "controversy" mostly involves the denialist campaigns to smear Mann
 * particularly in regards to Mann suing people because they had the temerity to call him a liar - as the complaint you linked to clearly shows, Mann is suing Steyn et al. for libel per se; they accused him of professional fraud, despite the fact that Mann can make one of the best cases that exists in academia that his work is entirely appropriate.
 * DR. MANN SHARED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE with other IPCC authors for their work in climate change - Yes, that would be a correct statement. The fact that you don't understand the difference between that and "I am a Nobel Laureate" says plenty about you, but nothing about Mann.
 * It is simply impossible to argue that Mann didn't falsely claim that he was a Nobel Laureate - it's actually well within the realm of possibility to argue that (Mann did not falsely claim he was a Nobel Laureate: see how easy it is!) but even if it wasn't, we'd need a reliable source to make that claim. We cannot, per Wikipedia policy, look at a set of facts and draw our our claims. That's considered "original research".


 * The false claims are legion and one can find links to numerous sources after spending about two minutes on Google - but are they reliable sources, or just denialist blogs? The onus is on you to provide high-quality sources for your claims. You can't expect others to do your work for you.
 * There is a reason the IPCC felt compelled to issue a statement five years after it was awarded the Nobel Prize - OK. Do you have a reliable source that says what the reason is? Are you willing to share it? If you can't provide a reliable source for your claims, don't make them.
 * one of the actual 2007 winners recently repudiated that claim - that statement is so absurd that it casts serious doubt on the reliability of the source. If the IPCC contributors aren't "actual winners" then the only "actual 2007 winner" is Al Gore. Who did not "repudiate that claim". Or maybe they're saying that the IPCC itself (not the people who make it up, since you insist that the people have no rights to the award) spoke, entirely of its own accord. Which is laughably absurd.
 * I could go on and on, but there's only so much bullshit I can take in one day. However, it is imperative that you read our policy on biographies of living people immediately and that you modify your comments such that they are in keeping with that policy. You cannot make unsubstantiated claims of wrong-doing against living people without providing impeccable sources. Guettarda (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Remarks and a suggestion
{outdent} As the editor who sought to "maintain Mann's integrity" last December, I'll make a few comments.
 * By "maintaining Mann's integrity," I meant adhering to WP:BLP. Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
 * I agree there has been some whitewashing here. (And puffery, too, but most has been removed. The Nobel Prize is still too prominent in the lede.)
 * Care must be taken not to belittle or besmirch the subject of a BLP. (In other words, to maintain his/her integrity or wholeness.)
 * A great deal of controversy surrounded the Nobel Prize issue in Dec. There were other communications than those above. It would be wrong to deny there was controversy here, in the blogosphere, and on Mann's Facebook page.
 * The second paragraph in the "Awards" section is dreadfully written--or rather, contorted by editing aimed at "getting it right," as per WP:BLP. I suggest the IP propose a rewrite of that paragraph that 1. Tells about the Prize awarded to the IPCC/Gore. 2. Tells how numerous contributors to the IPCC report claimed to be laureates. 3. Explains why they were not. -> All this while adhering to WP:BLP in letter and in spirit! Yopienso (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points, which take me back to my comment (the last in Archive 4) – "In my opinion, a brief mention of this lawsuit is appropriate in the #CRU email controversy section, which should also note the ATI lawsuit and its outcome. We should possibly also note Mann's libel suit against Tim Ball, but I've not found any reliable sources for that. . . dave souza, talk 11:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)" That opinion stands, I await the IP's proposals for wording which fully complies with the policies you rightly point out.. . dave souza, talk 08:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The mainstream doesn't like Tim Ball, so it ignores him. (WP, quite misguidedly, imho, deleted an article on him. He is not a rigorous scholar, nor is he a researcher, but he is well known in the climate wars.) The Chronicle of Higher Education covers the lawsuit with quite a screed against "warmists." The Columbia Journalism Review reported on both lawsuits last July. Yopienso (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality?
I think several statements, particularly in the opening paragraph here, are highly judgmental and not neutral or objective.

First, to say that he "has made significant contributions to the understanding of climate change" is highly dubious, given that his models have made numerous predictions which have been erroneous - the current "pause" contradicting his main "hockey stick" contention. A more neutral (and truthful) statement would be that he "has made significant contributions to climate change models."

Second, to say that he "has had an outstanding publication record ... in the face of political and personal attacks" again makes a biased judgment call on his publication record, ignores his own political and personal attacks on others (e.g., lawsuit against Steyn), and leaves out the important issue of his oft-repeated but false claim of being a Nobel Laureate. His own University bio has removed this claim, and he has no more claim to a Nobel than did Al Gore's statistician - he contributed to the project which won the award, but was not named by the Nobel committee (and not awarded the medal or financial reward) given to Nobel Laureates. A more neutral and accurate phrasing would be that he "has a prolific publication record ..." and that he "has been involved in numerous controversies."

I will make the changes on the page and would appreciate others discussing here any objections rather than just getting into an infinite loop of reversals and restatements. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msft watch (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You evidently disagree with the European Geosciences Union and are making your own unsupported derogatory remarks. for anything to appear here, it has to fully comply with .Biographies of living persons policy: your suggestions fail to meet that requirement. . dave souza, talk 22:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not making unsupported allegations. There is nothing derogatory about the changes I made. Rolling back to statements that are unsupportable is illogical and shows your bias. Please stop changing back to this version which violates the BPL standards and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msft watch (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, the original violates NPOV; the revision is neutral. The original claims that his models/contributions improved our understanding of climate change, but his warming predictions are far from observed (e.g., the hockey stick). The pointing out of the political and personal attacks violates NPOV, and ignores his own political, legal, and personal attacks - this edit put them back in and put in a completely neutral statement that he was involved in controversies rather than the biased POV that he was the subject of attacks. The references I added were also material and relevant, including the defamation lawsuit filing, as well the documented (WayBack Machine, for example) retraction of Nobel Prize-winning claims. If you believe that any of the edits were in violation of the BPL guidelines, please demonstrate for each that this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msft watch (talk • contribs) 00:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You've produced extremely poor sources and derogatory claims that blatantly fail both NPOV and BLP policy, please desist. . dave souza, talk 10:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Dave, I'm sorry, but repeating the poor sourcing and derogatory remarks claims does not make them true. His own bio on his own university's web site is not a poor source for the claim that he has retracted his Nobel Laureate claim. If you believe it is, I would claim that you are alone in that belief and should look to your own remarks for bias. Taking out judgmental statements does not demonstrate a violation of a neutral point of view - it is the definition of a neutral point of view. Stating that he is the target of attacks while deleting well-documented examples of his attacks on others (such as the actual lawsuit he filed on two individuals and two reputable businesses) is a demonstration once again of your own lack of neutrality, not an example of mine. We can certainly raise these specific topics for arbitration if you think this would be something that is likely to come out in your favor. I can't understand why you act as though these statements, which are not in any way judgmental about Michael Mann, can be called derogatory - that is a completely false claim by you. Further, the University of Pittsburgh bio of his, and the actual document of the lawsuit he filed, can hardly be called poor sources. A quick googling of your name does raise quite some questions of your neutrality, and I would be happy to include this information in a request for arbitration and perhaps a review of your status as an editor. Shall we start that process? Msft watch (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? What reliable third party source do you have to support your assertions, making sure that any sources fully meet WP:BLP requirements and you're not applying WP:SYNTH to primary sources to produce your allegations. You are of course welcome to try dispute resolution procedures, in which case I remind you to start focussing on content. Any googling of my name is unlikely to help you there. . dave souza, talk 20:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear to any reader here that you have an agenda. It is also pretty clear to me that you are more dedicated to your agenda than I am to fixing this article by removing your bias from it. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are promoting or detracting from your cause by obvious slanting. After all, the basic claim of those who oppose your point of view is that the "settled science" is actually slanted. Enjoy yourself - I'm gong on to greener and more fulfilling pastures.Msft watch (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Peacock, puffery, balance....
"He has had an outstanding publication record, including very influential papers, and has pointed out publicly the implications of dangerous climate change..."

[MBH99] "became the focus of controversy when some individuals and groups opposed to the scientific consensus attempted to dispute the data and methodology of this reconstruction to advance their views.... [emphasis added]

Etc. etc. I think we need a little balance her, for an intensely controversial figure who (in the opinion of some scientists) has done more harm to his "Cause" than good. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Mainstream scientists laud him, Pete. The European Geosciences Union says, "Mann has published seminal papers in top journals and his publication record is outstanding for a scientist of his relatively young age (10 articles in the 3 top journals: Nature, Science, PNAS)." Yopienso (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll look for some RS criticism when I have time. He's praised publicly, and criticized privately, is my impression -- so BLP-grade cites may be hard. Nevertheless, we're not doing a hagiography. Might be something from Curry and others who wondered why a new PhD got jumped up so quickly by IPCC. Lots of stuff in the Climategate emails, but prob. not BLP-grade. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note: " his publication record is outstanding for a scientist of his relatively young age" does not support "He has had an outstanding publication record." Someone may have said that, but it's unclear what qualifications an expert on Mann's publication record might need.  In addition, http://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/hans-oeschger/2012/michael-mann/ doesn't strike me as "reliable" for anything positive and controversial; it might be reliable for a negative statement.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Award announcements are expected to have puffery. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. But we can exercise editorial discretion in reproducing them. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Tillman, there's no reason to publish such comments as fact, when, at best, they should be WP:ATTRIBUTED. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I shortened the long, wandering para on the IPCC Nobel prize business. In case I was too drastic, here's the excised material:


 * The IPCC officially states that the certificates were issued "to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma, were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points."

Hard to imagine the general reader wanting to read this; I suppose it could go in a footnote if anyone feels that's necessary. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Pete, if it goes anywhere it ought to go on the 2007_Nobel_Peace_Prize page since it isn't specific to Mann. TimOsborn (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tim, and welcome. While I agree this BLP has been a hagiography, the certificate is indeed specific to Mann: it has his name on it and was mailed to him. The "trick" here :-) is to assess what is due weight; Mann himself has made much of this, and his detractors have made much of his out-sized claims to being a Nobel laureate. Had such publicity not occurred, that certificate would probably not merit mention.
 * IMHO, the first part of the paragraph is necessary to explain that issue, but the last gratuitous sentence should be deleted:
 * The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other "scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports", with a personalized certificate "for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC," celebrating the joint award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and the prize was not an award to any individual involved with the IPCC.[50][51][52] In his 2012 book Mann noted an IPCC meeting in 2009 celebrating the prize, where Working Group 1 co-chair Susan Solomon highlighted the personal sacrifice that he and Benjamin D. Santer had made in the name of the IPCC.[53] Yopienso (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yopienso, I was referring to the different piece of text that Pete was asking about, which is now partly in footnote 50 (and looks fine now). Wasn't suggesting to delete the paragraph you highlighted, which is indeed Mann-specific.  The issue about who won the prize, whose contributions were acknowledged and how, is a generic one and it isn't efficient to cover it on every page that mentions IPCC scientists and the 2007 prize.  Many pages had this wrong, not just this one.  I've fixed a couple of dozen pages that had this wrong and there are probably still many more (e.g. I just spotted these two: Welsh Nobel laureates and List of Martinians). TimOsborn (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the same paragraph; I'm suggesting it be further trimmed. I may just go ahead and take out that very unencyclopedic bit of puffery myself. But I see what you mean, and am glad that info has been relegated to/preserved in a footnote. Yopienso (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Physicist?
The Michael E. Mann bio around the web and here frequently claims he is a physicist. The basis of this claim appears to be that he (claims to have) an undergraduate Physics degree. I have found no evidence that he has ever worked or taught as a physicist. Is an undergraduate degree alone sufficient to support this claim? One might think that this claim is made in order to lend credence to his climate change work.

For example, if you majored in Political Science as an undergraduate, but then went to work as a social worker, should your bio claim that you are a Politician, Scientist, or Political Scientist?

If there are objections, it is worth a discussion. If there are no objections, then I would propose and subsequently undertake to delete this claim from the bio.Msft watch (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: actually, the bio claims that he also had a master's degree in Physics, so the undergraduate comment is understating his credentials if only slightly. However, many claims in the article (his tic tac toe programming, undergraduate and master's degrees, etc.) are not supported by any references at all, or only by references that were written by the subject himself. His upbringing in Amherst, father's occupation, programming tic tac toe, Berkeley attendance and majors, etc., all appear to be sourced by Mann's autobiography. Is this a sufficient source (especially after this source has had to retract a fairly bold claim about being a Nobel Laureate in the past)?Msft watch (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Per BLP, the book including his bio is reliably published, and climate science includes physics. Once again you seem to be making attacks on a very respected scientist without any reliable source. . dave souza, talk 10:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's really an autobiography, even if published by an otherwise reliable publisher, it should be considered almost as if self-published. His CV is certainly self-published.  Still, I generally side with Dave in this instance, as most of the statements are non-controversial.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically WP:SELFPUBLISH specifically refers to " a personal web page or publish their own book", the second link is about the "publication of any book or other media by the author of the work, without the involvement of an established third-party publisher". In this case the book is by an established third-party publisher, so that section of the policy doesn't apply. Of course since it's written by Mann it shows his own [expert] views, and is not an outside view on his bio, so due caution may be needed where statements are contested by reliable third party published sources that meet BLP requirements. . dave souza, talk 19:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave, climate science also includes "English," in that writers often use English. That does not make climate scientists English scientists.  The Physicist claim is not supported by any facts.  Clearly, quoting Michael E. Mann about his own qualifications is not an objective source.  There is no attack here, only an attempt to make this highly slanted bio into something a bit more balanced.  No one is suggesting deleting this bio, as Michael Mann is clearly an important figure, but his many misrepresentations of himself (e.g., Nobel prize, physicist, standing up against attacks) are biased and not compliant with BLP - the standard you cited yourself in this forum.  Your bias is clear, for example with your editorial remarks such as "it shows his own [expert] [sic] views."  Had you simply said "it shows his own views," you would have been correct, although his views on himself are tautologically biased.  There is no basis for his claim that he is a physicist, as this discussion has shown, so this must be stricken in order to ensure a non-biased bio here.Msft watch (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Having looked into this a bit, the most likely source for this statement is Fred Pearce, so I've added a citation. Obviously Mann had good qualifications in physics before starting his doctoral thesis, and he also has a doctorate in Geology & Geophysics. Are you arguing that Geophysics isn't physics? As for his career, note his appointments include the Department of Geosciences, and he is Director, Earth System Science Center. As for continuing expertise in geophysics, in 2012 he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union. Looks pretty solid. By the way, you'd better stop misrepresenting what he says, WP:BLP also applies to article talk pages. . dave souza, talk 21:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's misleading to call Mann a physicist in the first sentence of the lede. He isn't really a physicist, having only a BS in physics and not working specifically in the field. The physics background enhances his ability to work in geophysics, which I do think is a separate discipline from physics, though clearly related. It merits mention, but as a degree awarded and later in the lede or body.
 * Also, I'd remove "outstanding" since the source qualifies it with "for his age." "Strong" seems less peacock-ish.
 * From a purely stylistic stance, I'd delete "who contributed substantially to the reports" from the sentence about his recognition wrt the IPCC's Nobel Prize. Yopienso (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've changed "physicist" to "geophysicist" because it is more precise. The source said "physicist turned paleoclimatologist." I've replaced that good source with Mann's CV, checking first to make sure it's still used elsewhere on the page. I was wrong in my comment above--he also has two masters from the physics dept. at Yale, but his PhD is in geophysics and that's what he works in and is known for.
 * The contention, imo, has been more about perceived slights or puffery than about the best descriptor. I hope this works. Yopienso (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I support Yopienso's common-sense edit. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ars Technica
Climate scientist’s defamation suit allowed to go forward | Ars Technica provides an update. John Timmer, their Senior Science Editor, is a pretty good journalist. I'd like to see more rs's before covering this. . dave souza, talk 05:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I came to this article to update the discussion of the lawsuit by adding this recent decision, and I was very surprised to find absolutely nothing about the lawsuit at all! There are plenty of RS's about the suit -- just about this month's court decision, there's this one and this one.  The suit raises interesting legal issues, because the published criticism of Mann was very clearly over the top but might well be protected by the First Amendment because he's a public figure.  In terms of his bio, it's certainly a significant event in his life.  Is there any reason it's excluded?  If no one can point to any reason, I'll try to write up a suitably NPOV paragraph about the history of the litigation thus far. JamesMLane t c 18:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Since this a WP:BLP in the particularly sensitive topic area covered by WP:ARBCC there's need for particular care. Have had a look in WP:RSN for Mother Jones and while some editors consider it reasonably reliable if somewhat partisan, I've not found anything conclusive so far. The Volokh Conspiracy (legal blog) was rejected as a BLP source in 2008, and quite recently turned down for what appears to be a non-BLP citation, so that looks less useful. Without checking all of the archive, Ars seems to have a good reputation.  I think a brief neutral mention should be ok if Mother Jones and Ars are accepted as sources, but don't think we want to get into the detailed arguments at all. . dave souza, talk 19:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: looks useful, and Al Jazeera certainly has a pretty good reputation these days: skimming the RSN archives search confirms that. . dave souza, talk 19:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking, Dave. The lawsuit seems to be a big deal for Prof. Mann, so deserves some mention. Let the legal discovery begin! Bring popcorn ;-] --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Newsweek &mdash; goethean 03:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)