Talk:Michael E. Mann/Archive/PSU Investigation

Review by PSU of recent concerns

See also: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Pennsylvania State University has announced a review of recently-released emails for the "concerns that have been raised" with regard to Professor Mann.

I kinda see Tony's point, but our article certainly paints a picture of an almost-blemishless scientific paragon. Ah, well, give it time... (hide the decline) Pete Tillman (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The announcement of a formal investigation on Mann is certainly a notable event and there is no good reason to exclude it from the article. WVBluefield (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! I read this article for the first time a couple of days ago. When I did, it appeared to be a puff-piece lauding the praises of Mr. Mann. It definitely isn't written from a neutral point of view. Some editors, particularly Atmoz, are deleting substantiated, footnoted, and referenced facts, simply because they don't like the content.Martylunsford (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I've made 5 edits in total to this page. [1][2][3][4][5] The only one that comes close to your accusation is the last. But it's the job of editors to screen "facts" before publishing them. Otherwise you'd have the Obama article calling him a Socialist and citing Fox News. The fact that PSU put out a statement denying comment is not a reason to put it in the biography of Mann (Dr, not Mr). This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. -Atmoz (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think (hide the decline) tells you what you need to know: this is POV-pushing by the skeptics rather than an honest attempt at a biography William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you don’t think that a formal investigation by the university and hundreds of news citations make any of this relevant for even one sentence to be included in the article? How do you justify that when you fought so hard to include this edit? Some might see that as a double standard in how you approach notability. WVBluefield (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just a review of some emails at this stage. We have a policy known as biographies of living persons, and the concern in this instance is undue weight to a minor matter. --TS 22:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Penn State is conducting a review of Dr. Mann's ethics, research methods and actions is undoubtedly a major event in the life of a professional researcher and not a "minor matter". jheiv (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is your basis for stating that there is a review of "ethics, research methods and actions"? As far as i can see, the only thing that can be said is that the university is "looking into questions raised", as to what questions... that seems to be speculation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'm sure the University announced that they're looking into questions raised regarding what Dr. Mann has eaten for lunch this week. Let us not be so dense Ms. Peterson, it derails actual debate (although, admittedly, not as much as this retort probably does). jheiv (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• If you are going into speculative land, then it most certainly is relevant for this debate. This is a biography, and it is biographical material that you want to add, thus a very strict adherence to BLP must be held. Now i will ask again: What is your basis for that statement? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Not to lay my finger too much into the wound, but you, Jheiv, have managed to put two errors into a two-word friendly address. Is it possible, that your understanding of the topic also suffers from preconceptions and haste? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Having let cooler minds prevail, I'm sorry for the ridiculousness of my last comment (and for misspelling your name). I also realize that Penn State has been very deliberate in their choice of words in the press release announcing the investigation, in fact, the investigation is really only to determine whether there needs to be an investigation (heh, PR people). As I cannot justifiably (with support from RS) say that Dr.Mann is being investigated for his conduct(/actions/etc) at this point, I have no argument. I will stand by my opinion that a university investigating one of it's professor's actions / methods / ethics is not a "minor event" but rather a very atypical and major event in the life of a professional researcher, however, as of now, that does not seem to be the case. Please accept my apologies.jheiv (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that there are dozens of sources reporting Mann’s investigation and his link to climategate, is anyone here still going to defend their indefensible position that this isn’t notable enough for this article? WVBluefield (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's yet another, albeit columnar:

"...the jolly hockey stick merchant himself is also undergoing investigation – not to worry, it is of the most grudging and perfunctory kind – at Pennsylvania State University. The University’s statement announcing the investigation is so complimentary to Mann, it almost reads like the press release of the verdict, published prematurely." -- Gerald Warner column at the Telegraph, December 2nd, 2009. Warner proposes renaming the CRU as the "Piltdown Institute of Mann-made Global Warming." Heh. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I too, agree that this is notable and I'm worried that a biased administrator will lock out what are very relevant and appropriate edits. Please lift the lock so this material can be included. jheiv (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Addition

I realize the page is no longer protected, but I figured this is probably the diplomatic way to go anyway. I propose adding this:

In December 2009, as a result of the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎, Penn State University announced that they would be conducting an "inquiry" into the issues surrounding the leaked e-mails in at attempt to determine if a larger, formal investigation was necessary. Although the leaked e-mails are claimed to reveal Mann and fellow scientists exaggerating or fabricating global warming data, Dr.Mann said that the emails used terms "that can easily be misinterpreted by outsiders" and he is happy that the University is conducting the inquiry. Penn State also noted that some of the questions may have already been addressed in a 2005 National Academy of Sciences investigation of Dr. Mann and specifically his reconstruction of surface temperature records, an investigation that ultimately concluded that his work was sound.

jheiv (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Too much detail for something that so far is just an inquiry. Too much weight is put into what the definition of an inquiry is, and too much is put into what others claim (speculation) as opposed to what the inquiry is about. Drop everything from "in an attempt" to just before "Dr Mann said", and it may be acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not reporting speculation, per se, but actually the fact that it is speculated. Would something like this (direct copy and paste from Climatic Research Unit) be preferred?

Some climate change sceptics and bloggers have asserted that a number of the leaked e-mails contain evidence that scientists had conspired to manipulate data and to keep scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature. Critics of the climate change consensus assert that the e-mails undermine the theory that global warming is being caused by human activities and have dubbed the incident "Climategate."

jheiv (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be in favour of waiting (sorry, I know thats boring). The inquiry was announced in the middle of the media fuss, which appears to be largely fading. Apart from its announcement we know nothing whatsoever about it. Have they appointed people to do it? What is its remit? Etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point -- more information about the inquiry would most likely help address Kim D. Petersen's concerns as well. Since I've added it (and it looks premature), I'll revert now. We should however, address the inquiry if more information is released.

It's amazing how friends of the accused are allowed to prevent the truth from being spoken. It's amazing that three people, acting in unison, can prevent any substantive content to an article, which is a clear violation of WP:Ownership. Note to Schulz, WMC, ChrisO: This is NOT your web site. Do you NOT understand that? Are you hypocrites, and only apply WP when it suits your bias? 75.150.245.244 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)