This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scott Pruitt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Scott Pruitt. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Scott Pruitt. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
For centuries, Euclidean geometry was the consensus, then non-Euclidean took over. Newton was once the monarch of physics, then came the views of Riemann and Einstein and everything changed. It was once the "consensus" that Galileo was wrong, but then he turned out to be right. As recently as 1900, Mendel's genetics was unknown in large lands such as Russia. Point being: It is just a Democrat talking point that the "consensus" of science is anthropogenic global warming, thus suggesting that any other viewpoint is doltish and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 ( talk) 23:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
—as a response—
You are correct to note the consensus of science has changed. Numerous theories once believed to be descriptive have been turned on their head. However, this only occurred after evidence mounted and became unavoidably demonstrative of a newer scientific understanding. Therefore, at each point in time, scientific methodology means the consensus supports the best evidenced theory. Galileo’s case is a great example. Without telescopes, the geocentric model (earth at the center of the solar system) actually made more sense scientifically, as procession means that from the ground, the planets appear to move forward and backwards across the sky, as opposed to rising and setting (because the earths tilt, unknowable at the time, distorts our observation, it appeared that planets would stop, then move backwards). It was only when Galileos idea gained mounting, unambiguous and verifiable evidence that thinking changed.
So no, this is not a liberal talking point, because there is no concrete body of evidence with a unifying theory and verifiable data that combats the consensus. Yes, the model of climate change could in theory be wrong, but we only have the evidence we have.
If you suggest we should ignore the consensus because consensus can be misleading, why rely on science at all? We fly planes using our understanding of aerodynamics, but that could be wrong. Still, most evidence says we are correct, and planes can indeed fly.
A better question is why so many people refuse to acknowledge the consensus because even if all the evidence points to one conclusion, there may be something we don’t know. If that’s true, then the burden is on these people to first provide strong evidence, which can be verified by independent but identical experiments and by critical hypothesis probing for weak points. As no strong evidence has been produced, all evidence suggests the consensus is, if not correct, the best understanding we can have.
If we can’t even operate like this, we might as well smoke cigarettes and use lead in appliances and paint. After all, the consensus shows these cause cancer, but how can we be certain? My grandmother smoked until she was 90, and she is still alive, so by this logic, I can state that the claim that tobacco smoke causes cancer is just an effort to demonize smokers perpetuated by people who don’t like the smell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:8000:A920:F988:C6ED:D94D:B52A ( talk) 02:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
According to WP:LEAD,
Pruitt is primarily known as a climate change denier. When it became known that Trump – if elected President by the electoral college – intends to nominate him as Administrator of the EPA, reliable sources overwhelmingly and primarily described Pruitt as a climate change denier (" Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A., The New York Times, one of countless similar sources from both American and non-American reliable sources).
Pruitt himself has made no secret of his views on climate change, and these views are directly relevant to the position he might be appointed to. There is no doubt that under WP:LEAD, these views constitute a prominent controversy which needs to be mentioned in the lead, in addition to its coverage in the body of the article. I think it is sufficient to mention it very briefly (one short sentence) in the lead.
My proposal for the lead is a sentence like: "The New York Times has described him as a climate change denier." However, I'm very open to other ideas. -- Tataral ( talk) 18:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
After more than two weeks with no objections, I conclude there is consensus for the above proposal. -- Tataral ( talk) 16:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
In you have not read Thomas Frank's book The Wrecking Crew (book), now might be a good time to do it. He explains (in 2008, I think) exactly what is going to happen in Washington in 2017. Carptrash ( talk) 23:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how speculation as to how the New York Times came to describe him – prominently and several times – as a climate change denier, is relevant. Of course there is a vast amount of other reliable sources which describe him in the same way. Just to name a couple among many:
I have no objection to also including the fact that he calls himself a sceptic, if that can be reliably sourced. -- Tataral ( talk) 12:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact that he admits to be a denialist is signifciant, we should not pretend that his self-characterisation of this denialism as skepticism is a reflection of reality. Guy ( Help!) 15:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
New section would be needed. Wikipietime ( talk) 04:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC) https://nyti.ms/2iwyhr7
here's a source for emails:
http://www.exposedbycmd.org/Scott-Pruitt-Missing-Emails
Victor Grigas ( talk) 01:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Should 'He said of global warming that "that debate is far from settled"' be changed to 'He said of global warming "that debate is far from settled"' Sleyece ( talk) 14:19, 12, March 2016 (UTC)
I made an edit to the lead that contained a part about Pruitt intending to "distmantle the EPA". It was reverted by user:Ihardlythinkso, reverted back by user:MrX, and then reverted again. The three sources I used to support it [1] [2] [3] used the words "dismantle", "abolish" and again "dismantle", respectively. Now the wording could be different, but there is little doubt in these sources that Pruitt is moving to and planning to abolish/dismantle it. It also seems prominent and relevant, no? As the current head of the EPA his handling is being evaluated by observers and critics, who note that current actions along with his history suggest an effort to get rid of the agency. Washington Post is reporting he dismissed half of a "key board’s" scientific advisers and Scientific American is citing censorship over climate change material. In any case, scientists and observers are criticizing his current efforts as being destructive to the EPA. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 08:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
References
I'm challenging the recent edits made by User:Marquardtika, specifically these and this one (the latter was a direct cut of User:HaeB's edit). There are several problems:
Per WP:BRD, I'm reverting it for now and keeping it open for discussion. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 08:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I've added a NPOV tag to this article and would suggest a roll back of a massive number of edits made recently by a sock editor. The issues are somewhat related. The sock editor added a large number of references that while verifiable many not present a complete picture of any particular situation. A rapid fire of quotes from many articles isn't encyclopedic and doesn't really tell a complete story. Even worse it can be suggestive in a way that creates false impressions.
One example of this is this one line paragraph sourced to CNN ''On May 1, 2017, Pruitt met with Tom Collier, CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership, and shortly after announced the EPA would withdraw plans to protect Alaska's Bristol Bay from the proposed Pebble Mine.[112] The content is verifiable to CNN though the "withdraw plans" claim is very questionable. Reason.com dug into that story a bit and noted that the telling (which is currently Wikipedia's) is very questionable[ [6]]. Per Reason the EPA didn't withdraw rather it reversed an earlier decision that simply refused to allow the company to submit an environmental impact study. The EPA was still able to reject the project but now the company would be allowed to actually submit a plan. Anyway, Reason goes into quite a bit of detail. My concern is that a great many of the recently added content follows the pattern above. One or two damning sentences sourced from an article (no telling the article author would agree with the choice of sentences). It would be better if these stories were combined to create a more comprehensive narrative. The article can't be considered neutral so long as we don't verify there isn't are other sides to the various stories included.
@ Snooganssnoogans:, ECarlisle's account has been blocked as being a sock. The correct thing to do is remove sock edits from an article. Sorry your's were included I will try to give it a second pass with more care. Springee ( talk) 17:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Scientific consensus in of itself does not constitute scientific fact. Scientific consensus also concluded that the earth was flat, that everything revolved around Earth, etc... All of those were lauded as scientific fact. Consensus does not mean that Pruitt is wrong...nor does it prove that he is right. There are other scientists that do not agree with Global warming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.110 ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The takeaway is that we have used scientific methodology for much longer than is colloquially aknowledge; however, updated technologies have allowed us to see things we previously couldn’t — AND most importantly, this required those technologies first enable observations necessary to create a hypothesis which competes with the current one (as opposed to just saying “the hypothesis could be wrong so it’s irrelevant”) and which is internally repeatable and externally verifiable by rigerous attempts to test null hypotheses. while people can make any argument they wish, we only have the option of relying on the best and most rigerously tested one. However, if they can make a fully competing (must explain as many things as the old one) hypothesis, get data to prove it, others get the same data, and alternate experiments fail to disprove it, then they can influence policy. Otherwise I have the same right to say “Black tar heroin isnt bad because I don’t know for sure it is” or “George Washington wasn’t necessarily the first president... Just because that’s what We’ve found in history doesn’t make it true”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:8000:A920:F988:C6ED:D94D:B52A ( talk) 04:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I find this article libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.110 ( talk) 19:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Substituting the narrative promoted by Definers Public Affairs, the group accused in the lawsuit, for reporting by the New York Times and Politico, to mention two of the sources, is not acceptable. Among other things it glosses over Pruitt's ties to the group and the organization's role in investigating EPA employees who it believed were critical of the Trump administration. Nor did Definers Public Affairs simply withdraw as they stated. The EPA cancelled the contract in response to the controversy. Joalkap ( talk) 02:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Quote: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects."
I'm curious as to how Wikipedia's editors try to make Wikipedia's proclamation of neutrality jibe with the three (count 'em, three) photographs of protest signs strategically placed throughout this article.
The first comes immediately under the subject's bio box. The sign reads: REMOVE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS FROM OUR GOVERNMENT … NO PRUITT. You can't actually see any protestors; the photo's been tightly cropped to show only the message. The caption tells readers: "Pruitt represented as a climate change denier." This image appears just below Mr. Pruitt's college and law school credentials.
Next, about halfway down the article, we have a smiling woman holding up another sign. This sign reads: NO PRUITT – SAVE THE EPA. The caption helpfully reads: "Resist Trump Rally, NYC, 2017."
Finally, at the end of the article, we get a shot of the back of someone's head as they hold up yet another sign: STOP PRUITT. The caption informatively explains: "Stop Pruitt sign." This image is positioned next to Mr. Pruitt's electoral history, alongside the vote tallies for his elections as Oklahoma Attorney General. The photo is not from Oklahoma, nor is it from those elections.
Turns out, as it happens, that two of these three photos were taken in the same place, at the same time (within an hour of each other), by the same photographer: "Resist Trump Rally at Chuck Schumer's NYC Office on February 2, 2017." The third photo was taken less than two weeks later, in Washington, D.C., just before Mr. Pruitt was confirmed by the Senate to his current position.
In other words, all three illustrate the same topic: February 2017 protests against Mr. Pruitt's Senate confirmation. Well, the photographs don't actually capture the protests as such, since the viewer can't tell much from them or learn much from those vague and redundant captions. Mostly, all three photos present Wikipedia's readers with anti-Pruitt messages, which is rather, one gathers, the intent. Any one photo would serve to illustrate the article's section describing Mr. Pruitt's confirmation as head of the EPA. Three close-up photos (all taken in February 2017) showing protest signs, however, merely serve to espouse and reinforce the POV of the signs themselves — in a way that is not "fair," not "proportionate," and certainly not indicative of a Neutral Point of View. NicholasNotabene ( talk) 05:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course he was replaced as a U.S. Representative by a special election, not a gubernatorial appointment. This is hardly remarkable as the Constitution provides for gubernatorial appointment only of Senators, not Representatives. 72.106.148.2 ( talk) 23:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The long list of controversies contains some items that are biased or simply not true. I believe it is important that understandably critical claims about a public official's behavior should be substantantiated with unbiased and factual information only. As an example, there is a text saying "During one trip, Pruitt used Emirates, a costly Dubai-based airline with a reputation for luxurious service." Fact is that Emirates is an airline with relatively low rates for intercontinental flights, so the term 'costly' is not factual. The statement that they 'have a reputation for luxurious services' is irrelevant, because it's certainly not unethical to choose an airline based on its service record. I propose to update this and other non-factual information, thereby increasing the neutral informational value of the description of controversies.
Was just reading the article after seeing a news story and was surprised by the tit for tat controversy news quote section that is overwhelming the article and on encyclopedic in there present form. Anyone else think we should sum up the news reports quotes and move most to a new article?-- Moxy ( talk) 03:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
This man is killing me. I can't keep up with these scandals (at least note the pre-EPA days). Can someone incorporate this stunning but complicated NYT piece into the article?:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/us/politics/scott-pruitt-oklahoma-epa.html Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 03:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
this man is so scandal-ridden, then perhaps it would be better if you did not edit the article, per COI. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
This article is getting so unwieldy in the amount and depth of scandals that I can't identify where to put this particular lie of Pruitt's into the article: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/14/politics/epa-pruitt-security-detail/index.html. I need help, so I'm creating this talk which is separate from his pre-EPA ethics problems. I thought I could handle his EPA ethics problems, but it's just too much of a headache. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Politico summary of Pruitt scandals. [8] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Politico piece on Pruitt's virtually nonexistent record of emails [9]. Should be added to the secrecy and transparency section. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
More on the Pruitt-Hart relationship. [10] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
First, I want to say that I'm very, very sorry if I have stepped on a newbie's toes with my edit. It needed a lot of fixing and what I did was to use the edit that I'd made at the Trump environmental article. It is long, perhaps, for this article. I would not feel at all bad if someone were to cut it. On the other hand, this news seems to be well-publicized and it may become even more notable...and it may be something that brings a lot of readers to this article. Time will tell... Gandydancer ( talk) 16:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
=
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article was vandalized twice within minutes by a new user/graffiti artist, Areop-Enap. The first vulgarism was removed by a bot, the second BLP violation, terming the article's subject a "scumbag" was removed by an alert editor, KNHaw. I think semi-protection for a week might be helpful. The new editor should be blocked but I expect the vandalism might persist with the vandal using a new User name as a work-around. Activist ( talk) 20:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
"Why Hasn’t Trump Fired Scott Pruitt? Because Pruitt Can Fire Robert Mueller" [11] Gandydancer ( talk) 16:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
He resigned today July 5, 2018 A mirrer ( talk) 19:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Pruitt's resignation creates a degree of closure, which will make it easier to summarize and write more concisely. There's going to be a lot of really well-written news articles coming out that summarize Pruitt's tenure and all the scandals. It's important to capture the contemporary assessments of his whole tenure for the long-term encyclopedic value. These summaries may also help us to trim and write more concisely. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "He has served as the fourteenth Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since February 17, 2017." to "He served as the fourteenth Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from February 17, 2017, to July 5, 2017." to update the page to reflect his resignation. Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-resigns/index.html 104.57.237.207 ( talk) 04:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
In the fourth paragraph of the lede, EPA is rendered as "E.P.A." (with periods) and also "EPA" (without). This occurs several times throught the same paragraph. Please read the Manual of Style and try to be consistent. Having to constantly clean up these copyediting errors can easily dampen contributors' enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Kinkyturnip ( talk) 18:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
"Pruitt rejects the scientific consensus that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are a primary contributor to climate change.[3]"
Please either remove, since it isn't where it belongs in the article, or rewrite this sentence to remove its clear bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 ( talk) 22:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
This article seems long overdue for an assessment, as it's still rated "start." Activist ( talk) 08:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The current wording in the lead on Scott Pruitt says, "Pruitt rejects the scientific consensus that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are a primary contributor to climate change" with all but the first three words highlighted in blue. This links to a Wikipedia article called "Scientific opinion on climate change," which states in its lead that that scientific opinion is not the same as scientific consensus. It seems appropriate to change the longer sentence in the article on Pruitt to reflect the exact title of the Wikipedia article to which it links. Argentine84 ( talk) 17:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
When I started this post a few hours ago, I had not seen the post above, under "please remove bias," which shared the same concern I had. Argentine84 ( talk) 21:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s. Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause. Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects. People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.
The case, that Pruitt became incouncious and his security detail has to break the door has to be in the artical.
Caden.Schott7, I reverted your changes to the top because they did not appear to follow the sources in the rest of the article per MOS:LEADREL. Some updating may be due, but it should follow the emphasis and tone of independent WP:BESTSOURCES. Llll5032 ( talk) 02:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scott Pruitt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Scott Pruitt. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Scott Pruitt. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
For centuries, Euclidean geometry was the consensus, then non-Euclidean took over. Newton was once the monarch of physics, then came the views of Riemann and Einstein and everything changed. It was once the "consensus" that Galileo was wrong, but then he turned out to be right. As recently as 1900, Mendel's genetics was unknown in large lands such as Russia. Point being: It is just a Democrat talking point that the "consensus" of science is anthropogenic global warming, thus suggesting that any other viewpoint is doltish and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 ( talk) 23:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
—as a response—
You are correct to note the consensus of science has changed. Numerous theories once believed to be descriptive have been turned on their head. However, this only occurred after evidence mounted and became unavoidably demonstrative of a newer scientific understanding. Therefore, at each point in time, scientific methodology means the consensus supports the best evidenced theory. Galileo’s case is a great example. Without telescopes, the geocentric model (earth at the center of the solar system) actually made more sense scientifically, as procession means that from the ground, the planets appear to move forward and backwards across the sky, as opposed to rising and setting (because the earths tilt, unknowable at the time, distorts our observation, it appeared that planets would stop, then move backwards). It was only when Galileos idea gained mounting, unambiguous and verifiable evidence that thinking changed.
So no, this is not a liberal talking point, because there is no concrete body of evidence with a unifying theory and verifiable data that combats the consensus. Yes, the model of climate change could in theory be wrong, but we only have the evidence we have.
If you suggest we should ignore the consensus because consensus can be misleading, why rely on science at all? We fly planes using our understanding of aerodynamics, but that could be wrong. Still, most evidence says we are correct, and planes can indeed fly.
A better question is why so many people refuse to acknowledge the consensus because even if all the evidence points to one conclusion, there may be something we don’t know. If that’s true, then the burden is on these people to first provide strong evidence, which can be verified by independent but identical experiments and by critical hypothesis probing for weak points. As no strong evidence has been produced, all evidence suggests the consensus is, if not correct, the best understanding we can have.
If we can’t even operate like this, we might as well smoke cigarettes and use lead in appliances and paint. After all, the consensus shows these cause cancer, but how can we be certain? My grandmother smoked until she was 90, and she is still alive, so by this logic, I can state that the claim that tobacco smoke causes cancer is just an effort to demonize smokers perpetuated by people who don’t like the smell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:8000:A920:F988:C6ED:D94D:B52A ( talk) 02:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
According to WP:LEAD,
Pruitt is primarily known as a climate change denier. When it became known that Trump – if elected President by the electoral college – intends to nominate him as Administrator of the EPA, reliable sources overwhelmingly and primarily described Pruitt as a climate change denier (" Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A., The New York Times, one of countless similar sources from both American and non-American reliable sources).
Pruitt himself has made no secret of his views on climate change, and these views are directly relevant to the position he might be appointed to. There is no doubt that under WP:LEAD, these views constitute a prominent controversy which needs to be mentioned in the lead, in addition to its coverage in the body of the article. I think it is sufficient to mention it very briefly (one short sentence) in the lead.
My proposal for the lead is a sentence like: "The New York Times has described him as a climate change denier." However, I'm very open to other ideas. -- Tataral ( talk) 18:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
After more than two weeks with no objections, I conclude there is consensus for the above proposal. -- Tataral ( talk) 16:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
In you have not read Thomas Frank's book The Wrecking Crew (book), now might be a good time to do it. He explains (in 2008, I think) exactly what is going to happen in Washington in 2017. Carptrash ( talk) 23:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how speculation as to how the New York Times came to describe him – prominently and several times – as a climate change denier, is relevant. Of course there is a vast amount of other reliable sources which describe him in the same way. Just to name a couple among many:
I have no objection to also including the fact that he calls himself a sceptic, if that can be reliably sourced. -- Tataral ( talk) 12:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact that he admits to be a denialist is signifciant, we should not pretend that his self-characterisation of this denialism as skepticism is a reflection of reality. Guy ( Help!) 15:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
New section would be needed. Wikipietime ( talk) 04:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC) https://nyti.ms/2iwyhr7
here's a source for emails:
http://www.exposedbycmd.org/Scott-Pruitt-Missing-Emails
Victor Grigas ( talk) 01:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Should 'He said of global warming that "that debate is far from settled"' be changed to 'He said of global warming "that debate is far from settled"' Sleyece ( talk) 14:19, 12, March 2016 (UTC)
I made an edit to the lead that contained a part about Pruitt intending to "distmantle the EPA". It was reverted by user:Ihardlythinkso, reverted back by user:MrX, and then reverted again. The three sources I used to support it [1] [2] [3] used the words "dismantle", "abolish" and again "dismantle", respectively. Now the wording could be different, but there is little doubt in these sources that Pruitt is moving to and planning to abolish/dismantle it. It also seems prominent and relevant, no? As the current head of the EPA his handling is being evaluated by observers and critics, who note that current actions along with his history suggest an effort to get rid of the agency. Washington Post is reporting he dismissed half of a "key board’s" scientific advisers and Scientific American is citing censorship over climate change material. In any case, scientists and observers are criticizing his current efforts as being destructive to the EPA. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 08:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
References
I'm challenging the recent edits made by User:Marquardtika, specifically these and this one (the latter was a direct cut of User:HaeB's edit). There are several problems:
Per WP:BRD, I'm reverting it for now and keeping it open for discussion. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 08:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I've added a NPOV tag to this article and would suggest a roll back of a massive number of edits made recently by a sock editor. The issues are somewhat related. The sock editor added a large number of references that while verifiable many not present a complete picture of any particular situation. A rapid fire of quotes from many articles isn't encyclopedic and doesn't really tell a complete story. Even worse it can be suggestive in a way that creates false impressions.
One example of this is this one line paragraph sourced to CNN ''On May 1, 2017, Pruitt met with Tom Collier, CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership, and shortly after announced the EPA would withdraw plans to protect Alaska's Bristol Bay from the proposed Pebble Mine.[112] The content is verifiable to CNN though the "withdraw plans" claim is very questionable. Reason.com dug into that story a bit and noted that the telling (which is currently Wikipedia's) is very questionable[ [6]]. Per Reason the EPA didn't withdraw rather it reversed an earlier decision that simply refused to allow the company to submit an environmental impact study. The EPA was still able to reject the project but now the company would be allowed to actually submit a plan. Anyway, Reason goes into quite a bit of detail. My concern is that a great many of the recently added content follows the pattern above. One or two damning sentences sourced from an article (no telling the article author would agree with the choice of sentences). It would be better if these stories were combined to create a more comprehensive narrative. The article can't be considered neutral so long as we don't verify there isn't are other sides to the various stories included.
@ Snooganssnoogans:, ECarlisle's account has been blocked as being a sock. The correct thing to do is remove sock edits from an article. Sorry your's were included I will try to give it a second pass with more care. Springee ( talk) 17:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Scientific consensus in of itself does not constitute scientific fact. Scientific consensus also concluded that the earth was flat, that everything revolved around Earth, etc... All of those were lauded as scientific fact. Consensus does not mean that Pruitt is wrong...nor does it prove that he is right. There are other scientists that do not agree with Global warming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.110 ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The takeaway is that we have used scientific methodology for much longer than is colloquially aknowledge; however, updated technologies have allowed us to see things we previously couldn’t — AND most importantly, this required those technologies first enable observations necessary to create a hypothesis which competes with the current one (as opposed to just saying “the hypothesis could be wrong so it’s irrelevant”) and which is internally repeatable and externally verifiable by rigerous attempts to test null hypotheses. while people can make any argument they wish, we only have the option of relying on the best and most rigerously tested one. However, if they can make a fully competing (must explain as many things as the old one) hypothesis, get data to prove it, others get the same data, and alternate experiments fail to disprove it, then they can influence policy. Otherwise I have the same right to say “Black tar heroin isnt bad because I don’t know for sure it is” or “George Washington wasn’t necessarily the first president... Just because that’s what We’ve found in history doesn’t make it true”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:8000:A920:F988:C6ED:D94D:B52A ( talk) 04:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I find this article libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.110 ( talk) 19:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Substituting the narrative promoted by Definers Public Affairs, the group accused in the lawsuit, for reporting by the New York Times and Politico, to mention two of the sources, is not acceptable. Among other things it glosses over Pruitt's ties to the group and the organization's role in investigating EPA employees who it believed were critical of the Trump administration. Nor did Definers Public Affairs simply withdraw as they stated. The EPA cancelled the contract in response to the controversy. Joalkap ( talk) 02:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Quote: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects."
I'm curious as to how Wikipedia's editors try to make Wikipedia's proclamation of neutrality jibe with the three (count 'em, three) photographs of protest signs strategically placed throughout this article.
The first comes immediately under the subject's bio box. The sign reads: REMOVE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS FROM OUR GOVERNMENT … NO PRUITT. You can't actually see any protestors; the photo's been tightly cropped to show only the message. The caption tells readers: "Pruitt represented as a climate change denier." This image appears just below Mr. Pruitt's college and law school credentials.
Next, about halfway down the article, we have a smiling woman holding up another sign. This sign reads: NO PRUITT – SAVE THE EPA. The caption helpfully reads: "Resist Trump Rally, NYC, 2017."
Finally, at the end of the article, we get a shot of the back of someone's head as they hold up yet another sign: STOP PRUITT. The caption informatively explains: "Stop Pruitt sign." This image is positioned next to Mr. Pruitt's electoral history, alongside the vote tallies for his elections as Oklahoma Attorney General. The photo is not from Oklahoma, nor is it from those elections.
Turns out, as it happens, that two of these three photos were taken in the same place, at the same time (within an hour of each other), by the same photographer: "Resist Trump Rally at Chuck Schumer's NYC Office on February 2, 2017." The third photo was taken less than two weeks later, in Washington, D.C., just before Mr. Pruitt was confirmed by the Senate to his current position.
In other words, all three illustrate the same topic: February 2017 protests against Mr. Pruitt's Senate confirmation. Well, the photographs don't actually capture the protests as such, since the viewer can't tell much from them or learn much from those vague and redundant captions. Mostly, all three photos present Wikipedia's readers with anti-Pruitt messages, which is rather, one gathers, the intent. Any one photo would serve to illustrate the article's section describing Mr. Pruitt's confirmation as head of the EPA. Three close-up photos (all taken in February 2017) showing protest signs, however, merely serve to espouse and reinforce the POV of the signs themselves — in a way that is not "fair," not "proportionate," and certainly not indicative of a Neutral Point of View. NicholasNotabene ( talk) 05:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course he was replaced as a U.S. Representative by a special election, not a gubernatorial appointment. This is hardly remarkable as the Constitution provides for gubernatorial appointment only of Senators, not Representatives. 72.106.148.2 ( talk) 23:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The long list of controversies contains some items that are biased or simply not true. I believe it is important that understandably critical claims about a public official's behavior should be substantantiated with unbiased and factual information only. As an example, there is a text saying "During one trip, Pruitt used Emirates, a costly Dubai-based airline with a reputation for luxurious service." Fact is that Emirates is an airline with relatively low rates for intercontinental flights, so the term 'costly' is not factual. The statement that they 'have a reputation for luxurious services' is irrelevant, because it's certainly not unethical to choose an airline based on its service record. I propose to update this and other non-factual information, thereby increasing the neutral informational value of the description of controversies.
Was just reading the article after seeing a news story and was surprised by the tit for tat controversy news quote section that is overwhelming the article and on encyclopedic in there present form. Anyone else think we should sum up the news reports quotes and move most to a new article?-- Moxy ( talk) 03:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
This man is killing me. I can't keep up with these scandals (at least note the pre-EPA days). Can someone incorporate this stunning but complicated NYT piece into the article?:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/us/politics/scott-pruitt-oklahoma-epa.html Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 03:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
this man is so scandal-ridden, then perhaps it would be better if you did not edit the article, per COI. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
This article is getting so unwieldy in the amount and depth of scandals that I can't identify where to put this particular lie of Pruitt's into the article: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/14/politics/epa-pruitt-security-detail/index.html. I need help, so I'm creating this talk which is separate from his pre-EPA ethics problems. I thought I could handle his EPA ethics problems, but it's just too much of a headache. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Politico summary of Pruitt scandals. [8] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Politico piece on Pruitt's virtually nonexistent record of emails [9]. Should be added to the secrecy and transparency section. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
More on the Pruitt-Hart relationship. [10] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
First, I want to say that I'm very, very sorry if I have stepped on a newbie's toes with my edit. It needed a lot of fixing and what I did was to use the edit that I'd made at the Trump environmental article. It is long, perhaps, for this article. I would not feel at all bad if someone were to cut it. On the other hand, this news seems to be well-publicized and it may become even more notable...and it may be something that brings a lot of readers to this article. Time will tell... Gandydancer ( talk) 16:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
=
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article was vandalized twice within minutes by a new user/graffiti artist, Areop-Enap. The first vulgarism was removed by a bot, the second BLP violation, terming the article's subject a "scumbag" was removed by an alert editor, KNHaw. I think semi-protection for a week might be helpful. The new editor should be blocked but I expect the vandalism might persist with the vandal using a new User name as a work-around. Activist ( talk) 20:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
"Why Hasn’t Trump Fired Scott Pruitt? Because Pruitt Can Fire Robert Mueller" [11] Gandydancer ( talk) 16:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
He resigned today July 5, 2018 A mirrer ( talk) 19:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Pruitt's resignation creates a degree of closure, which will make it easier to summarize and write more concisely. There's going to be a lot of really well-written news articles coming out that summarize Pruitt's tenure and all the scandals. It's important to capture the contemporary assessments of his whole tenure for the long-term encyclopedic value. These summaries may also help us to trim and write more concisely. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "He has served as the fourteenth Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since February 17, 2017." to "He served as the fourteenth Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from February 17, 2017, to July 5, 2017." to update the page to reflect his resignation. Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-resigns/index.html 104.57.237.207 ( talk) 04:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
In the fourth paragraph of the lede, EPA is rendered as "E.P.A." (with periods) and also "EPA" (without). This occurs several times throught the same paragraph. Please read the Manual of Style and try to be consistent. Having to constantly clean up these copyediting errors can easily dampen contributors' enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Kinkyturnip ( talk) 18:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
"Pruitt rejects the scientific consensus that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are a primary contributor to climate change.[3]"
Please either remove, since it isn't where it belongs in the article, or rewrite this sentence to remove its clear bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 ( talk) 22:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
This article seems long overdue for an assessment, as it's still rated "start." Activist ( talk) 08:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The current wording in the lead on Scott Pruitt says, "Pruitt rejects the scientific consensus that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are a primary contributor to climate change" with all but the first three words highlighted in blue. This links to a Wikipedia article called "Scientific opinion on climate change," which states in its lead that that scientific opinion is not the same as scientific consensus. It seems appropriate to change the longer sentence in the article on Pruitt to reflect the exact title of the Wikipedia article to which it links. Argentine84 ( talk) 17:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
When I started this post a few hours ago, I had not seen the post above, under "please remove bias," which shared the same concern I had. Argentine84 ( talk) 21:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s. Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause. Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects. People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.
The case, that Pruitt became incouncious and his security detail has to break the door has to be in the artical.
Caden.Schott7, I reverted your changes to the top because they did not appear to follow the sources in the rest of the article per MOS:LEADREL. Some updating may be due, but it should follow the emphasis and tone of independent WP:BESTSOURCES. Llll5032 ( talk) 02:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)