Talk:Michael E. Mann/Archive/UEA Controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See also to UEA controversy

At this point, a "See also" to the Climategate article might be the best interim solution. Added same. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

While it's certainly wise to revisit this after the dust has settled, the fact of the matter is that events are added to Wikipedia the same day all the time, NOT_NEWS notwithstanding. Indeed, almost every time I learn about a news story on the TV or radio and visit the corresponding Wikipedia page I find that the news has already been incorporated into the Wikipedia article. Not a single sentence or word or letter or punctuation in any of the leaked emails has been challenged as inauthentic by any of their authors, and a fair number of the recipients of those e-mails have taken the trouble to confirm that they are authentic, and they have been widely quoted in highly reliable secondary sources such as the Washington Post.

Which, BTW, re:copyright, is fair use, so it would be entirely legal to quote the emails on Wikipedia just as the Washingto Post quoted them in their article. And given that some of the emails have become (in)famous, we will be compelled by the Wikipedia guidelines to add them, and to link to the complete text of them, for example the archive stores at Wikileaks. I notice Wikimedia hosts the Pentagon Papers: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers. As there, here we have public researchers conducting studies that are extremely important to the public.

Also, BTW, Mann and Jones are public figures, and the legal and ethical considerations in almost all countries that motivate BLP are far less for public figures than for private ones. Also, the e-mails involve their public work, indeed work that is of the most extreme importance to the public, none of them involve their private lives. The entire archive appears to be a prepared response to a FOI request that they decided to deny instead, it's all about the scientific work and not private stuff. Flegelpuss (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Although initially uncertain, F's words convince me that the link shouldn't be there for now William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Pete, I don't agree. We wouldn't like this if we did this sort of thing was done to, say, Lindzen, on the basis of some hacked email, that could be taken out of context, and we shouldn't like it any better, however we feel about Mann. ClimateGate seems to be more about Jones than anyone else. This goes strongly against my personal bias, of course, and I believe we all need to stand together to enforce the WP rules. WP should be about the rules, about objectivity, about encyclopaedic content... not about reaching compromises... A see also to "Climate Gate" has not had time to be established as significant in the life of Michael Mann. There's some pretty questionable stuff in there, sure, but I believe in the innocent till proven guilty thing. I've said a lot of crap in emails in my life, and god help me if someone reveals it all to the world some day. Let's do the right thing here... who knows... maybe others will copy us... Alex Harvey (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

While the apparent discrepancy in what some editors feel is a BLP violation and isn’t a BLP violation tickles my funnybone in a way that’s most satisfying, I agree with Alex that this probably hasn’t reached enough significance in Mann’s illustrious career to warrant a significant portion of this article. A like to Climategate should suffice for now. WVBluefield (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Alex, I think the "See also" is well-justified, as it links to Mann's reaction to the controversy: [1] "Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, told the Washington Post that sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious".

Not linking to a controversy that the subject himself has commented on would seem odd. Reverted WMC's delertion. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's extreme undue weight. Mann may have commented on it but he's not alleged, as far as I know, to have played any significant role in it. Your approach would imply that a link should be added to the biography of every scientist mentioned in or commenting on the e-mails, which would be absurd. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that Mann hasnt been one of the individuals at the center of this. A brief look at the news articles reporting this story mention Mann many times. WVBluefield (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to read more closely then - brief looks aren't advisable if you want to get it right. Apparently Mann was the recipient of one of the e-mails. That seems to be the limit of his involvement. As I said above, it would be extreme undue weight to associate this incident with people on the margins of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mann is the, author, recipient, or mentioned by name in over 500 of the emails. He personally wrote over 130. Providing a link to the controversy seems to be required in this case. Q Science (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? You haven't provided any rationale for why it should be relevant to a biographical article. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Dr. Mann is heavily involved in the controversy. Aside from the hacked emails he sent, received, or was mentioned in -- see, for instance, this mention in the NY Times [2]: "Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures." -- Andrew Revkin

How can a link to the controversy be "extreme undue weight", per Chris O?

Incidentally, Mann doesn't seem to be highly regarded by many of his colleagues, per the hacked emails. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems that ClimateGate is going to be relevant to this BLP whether the Wikipedia apparatchiki like it or not. Dr. Mann is certain to be called before at least one U.S. Senate investigation, and there have already been pressures in Pennsylvania for a criminal investigation of his role in the longstanding collusion revealed in the CRU communications. 71.125.136.27 (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Stephan Schulz (talk)

• There appears to be a plurality of editors here who feel that Mann's involvement in Climategate merits a section in the article, or at least a "See also" to that article. Mann's involvement is now documented in Reliable Sources, see for example Global Warming With the Lid Off: The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science., WSJ lead editorial, 11/24/09. Sample: "For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions."

Yet an edit war has erupted over this, with editors Atmoz and Stephen Schulz being most active in reverting any attempt to mention Mann's involvement. This seems (to me) both absurd and petty.

Are there any substantial arguments for excluding this, other than WP:I DON'T LIKE IT? Pete Tillman (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think there's a plurality supporting the inclusion, then you either can't count or don't know what plurality is. The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal isn't a reliable source of anything. Arguments for not including it have been expressed above. I suggest you read them. -Atmoz (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. An editorial is a reliable source only for the opinion of a particular media outlet. It's not a reliable source for a statement of fact. I might add that, predictably, this particular issue is being driven by Mann being a hate figure for those of a certain political persuasion. It has very little to do with Wikipedia's own editorial requirements. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

An editorial in one of the USA's two major national newspapers would seem a pretty definite indication of the notability of Dr. Mann's Climategate involvement. Pete Tillman (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, Tillman, you might wish to take note of the fact that we do not in fact have an article called "Climategate". -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mann is publicly responding to his emails and has being quoted by many sources [3] and [4]. This is not only part of his legacy now, but is emails and responses to them are affecting the whole climate debate. Something should be posted on his page about it.Hopkinsrocks (talk)

• My count of those who have expressed an opinion here:

Editors FOR including info re Mann & Climategate (a handy shorthand for Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎), or a link to same:

• Tillman
• Q Science
• WVBluefield
• 71.125.136.27
• Flegelpuss
• 38.117.213.19
• Bfigura
• hopkinsrocks Hopkinsrocks (talk)
• Math.geek3.1415
• jheiv -- Strongly for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheiv (talk • contribs) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors AGAINST same:

• William M. Connolley
• Kim D. Petersen
• Alex Harvey
• ChrisO
• Atmoz
• Stephan Schulz (by multiple reverts)

But we also need to look at the quality of the arguments presented FOR & AGAINST. SFAICT, all the arguments that have been presented AGAINST have been refuted, or amount to WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. Further actual arguments welcome. Pete Tillman (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll make an argument: WP:NOT#NEWS. I don't think we should be covering breaking news, at all. I'm surprised there isn't a flat rule against it. It seems discouraged, at any rate, in WP:NOT#NEWS. But look, we've all known about Mann for years. Now we've got it all in writing, from the horse's mouth, as it were. It's over. History will take care of the rest. I say, let's come back in a year or so, and there'll be no controversy that Mann's name will be forever linked to the Climategate scandal. For now, let's think about WP:NOT#NEWS. My view, for what it's worth. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your statement that the arguments presented against have been refuted is nonsense. The trouble you have is that you are trying to invoke the crystal ball, and jump ahead to a conclusion (just as Alex says (although i do not (unsurprisingly) agree with his read of the situation)). Once/If there ever comes substance behind the claims/predictions of Manns involvement (in something) then it will be integrated into the article. Speculations are not something to put on Wikipedia and especially not on a BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[reply to KDP] Your accusation of crystal balling is baseless, approaching a slur, and, again, amounts to WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. C'mon, Kim -- you can do better than this.

Folks, all we're asking (for the moment) is a link to Climategate. Pull your heads out of the sand. Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Your statement that this is a "crisis" is your own personal opinion, and purely speculative - its basically something that you pull out of the crystalball as your own prediction. Its very very simple: Mann is not implicated in any way or form in the e-mail leak, nor is there any indications that he might be the leak. There are speculations that Mann might at some point be implicated by the contents of the e-mails, but so far this is all speculations from the blogosphere stuff and various pundits. Personally i think its a storm in a glass of water, but that will not stop me from including it, if or once there is more substance behind allegations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, Kim, that's George Monbiot calling it a crisis, not me. And you still seem to be avoiding the issue, that Mann is intimately involved in ClimateGate, and that this involvement is well-documented by RS's/ Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Monbiot can call it what he wants - that doesn't make it so (and please do remember that M's column is opinion), as for Manns "involvement" - that belongs in the speculative realm... Certainly a lot of the blogosphere believe him to be - but again that doesn't make it so. All of the "implications"/"interpretations" of the emails are exactly that: Speculation. Once things cool abit down it will be interesting to see if any of it sticks, so far i'm rather doubtful of it. The facts in the "scandal" are so far very very few: Emails and other documents where illegally obtained by persons unknown and released via a russian ftp-site. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This debate also suffers from heavy socking (all on one side, surprise). I'd like all serious editors on both sides to use basic due diligence and not acknowledge obvious socks and sock masters as if they were legitimate participants in the discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remove any obvious (ie, blocked) socks, and label suspected ones. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Flegelpuss is a blocked sockmaster and Hopkinsrocks looks extremely socky. The IPs should be excluded. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A link to Climategate and a brief mention of Mann's relationship to the controversy can be noted in the article. If the "not news" argument held any water, it would be easily used to delete the whole Climategate article.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a "Climategate" article. Please do catch up. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some in the media as Climategate... Pete Tillman (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Socky? Does everyone agree that these are facts: His emails are part of the stolen CRU emails, excerpts of his have been quoted widely by the media and he publicly says the are taken out of context?[5] Hopkinsrocks (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think not including this is absurd. its on kirkpatrick's page and this is highly notable. To the person who said the WSJ editorial isn't a valid source for information i think is extremely misguided since it has the highest circulation in the US. To humor you, however i'll include a link to a story by from us news and world report reporting Mann being under investigation for fabricating data [6]Jgeddis (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrators, does this not meets all criteria of submissions yet? "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" Mann publicly responds to the media again - Associated Press , Washington Times From the San Fransisco Chronicle :

"Michael Mann, the director of the Earth Systems Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, was among those whose e-mails were circulated as evidence of attempts to exclude scientists with differing opinions. He said the passages were cherry-picked phrases from casual conversations about the quality of peer review at certain publications and how bad science should be excluded. "They have engaged in this 11th-hour smear campaign where they have stolen personal e-mails from scientists, mined them for single words or phrases that can be taken out of context to twist their words and I think this is rather telling," Mann said, pointing out that some of the e-mails were more than a decade old. "Those advocating inaction don't have the science on their side."

Also, Mann is mentioned 6 times on the Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident page.Hopkinsrocks (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Wiki page needs updatign to reflect mere fact that he is under investigation of Climate Gate*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgasbarro (talk • contribs) 16:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.