User:Tillman/Climategate incubator draft comment

Assessment of draft
I hadn't seen this draft article since it was on Wikidemon's talk page -- indeed, I didn't even know we had an "article incubator". So this is a quick, "horseback" reassessment of the draft, and where it might go from here.

I had hoped to see a draft focusing on what's missing from Climatic Research Unit email controversy -- in my view, this would include well-sourced information on public reactions to the controversy, and on the weakening of public support for taking expensive action to combat AGW. I made some suggestions for such material in earlier comments here, upthread.

This draft and the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article are still very similar, with only minor new content here, and that mostly (I think) recycled from earlier versions of that article. This draft is somewhat rougher than the article and (arguably) less NPOV.

Editor Hipocrite (et al.) have a point that this looks like a POV fork. The old material was removed after debate, and the new material here doesn't appear (to me) to be enough to support a new article. So any attempt to take this draft "live" is going to be very controversial. I see that editor Moogwrench has put the draft on "hold", which is probably wise.

I still support an article (or section) dealing with the actual controversy, as Wikidemon has suggested upthread. I don't really know how best to deal with the intense opposition to (for example) even calling the controversy Climategate .... Perhaps Jimbo's intervention will get that reconsidered, but the rest may have to wait awhile. I'm going to fiddle with an alternate draft at User:Tillman/Climategate article draft, but it may be awhile before that is anywhere near usable. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)