Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions about Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

→

Content restriction

I am not sure when the "content restriction" was imposed so that nobody can revert material that has been reverted in the last 24 hours, but it seems like a bad idea. That means anyone who wants to make an edit to the article has to study whether any part of their edit undoes anything that has been done in the last 24 hours, which may cover a good deal of edits. Why would this be required? It seems much more obstructive to non-aggressive editing than is useful or necessary. Obviously it means to keep people from contributing to ongoing revert wars, but I don't see how the wording should not be so broad as to require people to constantly keep track of everything that has been edited in the last 24 hours or face being blocked. Right now it appears I have to look through 30 edits to see whether I can make any change.[1] Mackan79 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No one's going to care if you make a spelling correction that's a revert. And anything that may be controversial should be discussed. Guettarda (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend to do anything controversial. I was going to remove a statement that had a fact tag on it, and then I was going to try to revise it based on a couple of sources I found. But more broadly speaking, even if I run a compare of the last 30 edits I won't see if material has been removed and replaced so now it is back where it started. So I'd really have to go through all 30 edits one by one. That seems kind of crazy. I don't expect that I'd run into trouble, but the rule seems set up to fail. Mackan79 (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is uncontroversial, then people are not going to look to see if you are violating the restriction. If it has been removed for being unsourced, then it indicates that it is sufficiently "sensitive" to require sourcing; however, WP policy notes that if content can be sourced then it may be included (did the removal note lack of relevance, as well?) These restrictions are in place so that meat/sockpuppets cannot take up the cause of accounts who have expended their allotted reverts - if there was not the potential for such edit wars then there would need be no content restriction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC) ps. I was unaware of this restriction, and I have been asked and am involved in trying to overview these topics - I was not aware I was blindfolded as well as dumb! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the motivation, to some extent. The only problem is that it's basically impossible to ensure that you aren't reverting something. I can tell if I'm repeating myself, at least most of the time, but to see if I'm doing something someone else has had undone... I just wouldn't know, and there's no way someone is going to go through 30 edits to make sure. We're forced to say then that if an edit is uncontroversial no one will look, but I certainly doubt that in this environment. Probably it would work when it's obvious that the person didn't agree with the last revert, and so reverted back, but almost certainly it will get to where someone claims not to have known. I think for people who try to be conscientious, this is also a pretty big burden; if you don't know anything about enforcement, and you read this, I can't see how you're going to feel like getting involved in editing under rules that are so difficult to ascertain. Mackan79 (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This restriction is just plain awful and I'm not sure what whoever added it could have been thinking. Not only is it awful for the reason stated here: that it's a ton of work to figure out whether something has been done in the last day, but it's awful because it allows pretty much anyone to freeze the page. If I go do anything that could be considered a revert, nobody can touch it for 24 hours? This is effectively indefinite semi-protection, but it allows disruptive editors to freeze the article however they like. Please remove this silly silly restriction. 1RR was more than enough and the page was under control with that in place. Oren0 (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I can see that that is unduly burdensome for an article under active development. I will amend it to simply WP:edit warring will be strictly interpreted. I wanted some unambiguous way of saying that these recurrent no, *you* do not have consensus edit wars are tiresome and interfere with building a quality article in a collegial atmosphere. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Uncontested" version

Contrary to the assertion in the edit summary of this edit, I do not believe that it is the "uncontested" version.

Why?

1. 9 argued for a "short summary" (not necessarily this one) vs. 4 for a longer (again unclear which version) section in the main article, with or without the subarticle. 9 vs. 4 is not exactly uncontested.

2. Vis-a-vis #1, it wasn't even clear that those who supported the WP:SUMMARY option were arguing for this particular version, especially considering how short it is and the fact that it does not accurately summarize all the content of the sub-article. In WP:SUMMARY we are given the warning: "In applying summary style to articles, care must be taken to avoid a POV fork (that is, a split which results in the original article and/or the spin-off violating NPOV), and/or a difference in approach between the summary and the spin-off, etc."

3. In my personal opinion, I assume that the central aspect of this article, the content of the emails, deserves more than two sentences. I would suspect that some of those 9 that voted for a short summary would agree with that sentiment.

On a related note, I might want to add that, apart from the fact that declaring this mini-RfC closed after only 22 hours is a bit premature. Normal RfCs last for up to 30 days, and I am left wondering as to why such a rush to implement supposed consensus? Moogwrench (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to propose an addition to the two sentences that you feel more accurately sumarizes the sub article but does not duplicate it per the 9 people who felt that the old text violated summary style, I'm certain everyone would entertain your proposal. Hipocrite (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The issue was discussed, and there was no opposition until CoM came along and reverted the edit, claiming that it hadn't been discussed. I couldn't really sort out his comments, so I created the straw poll to figure out what people thought, and whether there was support for CoM's revert. The discussion isn't closed, but I think it's fair to say that there isn't widespread support for CoM's revert. Pending resolution, I think it's appropriate to undo his revert. Guettarda (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that too much of the content regarding the e-mails was cut out. The discussion of the Freedom of Information act violations and other controversies need to be reincluded. Maybe Hipocrite can take a look and restore the key sentences? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least one !vote had trouble distinguishing between the last two options (arguing that the summary should retain coverage of the key issues and controversies, arguable in a 2 sentence summary), and one !vote could be taken even as an endorsement of the then larger summary and its larger subarticle (again, it is unclear because no particular versions were given as diffs for this "straw poll"). As far as people arguing that something is unreadable, I think sometimes we cite as unreadable what we don't wish to read, instead of what is incoherent or excessive.

My original point, made a few days ago, stands: This article might not even exist were it not for the particular content of the leaked information. This subject is notable because of the intense reaction the content of the leaked information generated (2 sentences), not because of how it was obtained and distributed (a brief episode which nevertheless commands 11 sentences over three paragraphs with numerous small details such as filenames, file size, locations of servers, etc. in this current version) WP:UNDUE anyone? If the previous version's document's section is too long, fine, but the solution is not creating essentially a content fork which substantially differs in approach.

And I still think 22 hours is a bit short for consensus to be established in any RfC. Moogwrench (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well put. I'm okay with a subarticle on the documents, but as it stands now it looks like an improper forking to cut out the most notable aspects of the controversy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not 22 hours. More like 70-some. Guettarda (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 22 hours. The "straw poll" that you set up at 20:59, 7 February 2010 that is now supposedly serving as "consensus" is not even 24 hours old. Moogwrench (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So what? It's obviously falling way in favor of one option, so WP:SNOW should apply. Let's not waste time arguing over process. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

SNOW only applies to things that need to be closed. Since this poll can remain open for a long time, SNOW would never apply. Obviously, if it turns out that theres a proposal that is more supported than my two sentences, that would be preferred. Since the only alternatives are deleting an article that 11 people want kept, or including language that 11 people dont like, it seems to me that the 4 people who disagree with the 9 people can either stand aside, find at least more people to agree with them, or present another alternative, which is why I suggested that Moogwrench present a third way. Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SNOW has nothing to do with closing anything, although it has been applied to such circumstances. I'm not saying it applies to the straw poll. I'm saying it applies to the circumstance. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, 9-4 is not WP:SNOW, for one thing, and for another, process (of consensus building) is Wikipedia. Consensus is everything, so to say, "let's not waste time arguing over the process" kinda misses the point that the process is supreme--we are all here to build an encyclopedia. Finally, not all people interested in a particular decision log in 10 times a day, like all of us Most Interested People. Are you going to invalidate the editor who logs in every couple of days and tell them that their opinion goes against a consensus they had no part in forming because some people were so anxious to see their vision put forward as the dominate one that they couldn't allow a little time to pass to hear everyone's viewpoint?

This is why a traditional WP:RfC lasts up to 30 days. I would challenge those who believe that consensus is important to either put up a real RfC and see what consensus emerges out of that, or at the very least let their straw poll last a little longer than 22 hours. Moogwrench (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion began three days ago, and no one objected to the fork. So it was done, and the material here trimmed per WP:SUMMARY. CoM reverted, claiming there was no discussion, or there was no consensus, or something. I couldn't figure out what he was saying, so I added a straw poll. And from it, it's pretty clear that there's been no major change in consensus. The poll is still open. But given the lack of support for CoM's rv, it was undone. The status quo ante was restored. But discussion—and more importantly, improvements—can still go on. Guettarda (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

From the proposal on at 14:14 on the 5th to the creation of the new article at 12:48 on the 7th: 46 hours. 46 hours is not a good sense of consensus. Like I said before, not everyone logs in every day--again this is the reason why things like Move requests and AfDs last 7 days. So you can't claim some kind of grand consensus after just a day or two. Not everyone is obsessed with Wikipedia like us, but their opinions should count, which means giving them the time to notice what you are doing before you announce it as a ironclad, consensus-bound, fait accompli less than 2 days after proposing it. Moogwrench (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone announcing anything as ironclad, consensus-bound fait accompli except you. If you have changes you'd like to suggest that you think will gain consensus, suggest them. If you think over the next 30 days additional people showing up to voice their opinion will change the accounting such that the current solution is not the most-preferred version, then we'll switch to the version that work its way out then. I don't know why 2 people who support a version should hold up 12 people who don't. Hipocrite (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, announcing that since "no one has objected to something I may proceed with consensus" doesn't have as much value when you haven't given much chance for them to object to it, much less an example/sandbox version to consider. This is what I mean by announcing something as a fait accompli. The fact that people didn't object until a couple hours after you did it merely shows that either they hadn't noticed what you were planning, didn't have the time to do so, or didn't realize what the plan entailed, for what its worth. Is that consensus building? Moogwrench (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, let's not get bogged down in a meaningless process discussion where the outcome is already obvious to everyone. Nobody objected to the fork. The objections began only once the fork was reverted, and then again when the reversion was restored. Nothing prohibits further discussion, but the forked version should remain in the meantime (since it enjoys far more support). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

The POV tag on this article was removed in this edit by Nightmote. Discussion about the tag and its purpose had long-since died down here and this was a bold and noble edit. Then it was re-added by AQFN for no apparent reason and with no section created on Talk outlining specific POV issues. I have reverted this addition and invite anyone who feels that there is a POV issue with the article to explain exactly what it is here, so that we can decide whether to add {who}, {dubious}, {cn} or other tags to disputed sentences; POV tags to specific sections; or if there are several issues distributed throughout the article, perhaps re-instate a top-level POV tag, and begin systematically working through the list of realistic issues provided. Placing a POV tag at the top of such an active article as this, with no list of issues and so no possibility of finding ways that it can ever be removed by diligent editing, seems to me to be unhelpful at this stage. --Nigelj (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? You're seriously trying to say there isn't a NPOV dispute? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of any current neutrality dispute. After the recent massive changes by Nightmore and Hipocrite, there's very little of the article left to argue about! -- Scjessey (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That made me laugh! But it was exactly what I was aiming for. Nightmote (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Search this talkpage for "NPOV" and you'll see numerous disputes of this article regarding that policy. This can give you a sense of the issues that need to be sorted out. Note that it is not common practice to give a list of contentions within the NPOV tag.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the point Scjessey is making is that the tag was added to an earlier, very substantially different version of the article. It is not necessarily appropriate now that the article has been changed drastically. What are the remaining POV disputes? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

All from the past 4-5 days: #Failure_to_produce_compelling_counterargument.3B_name_changed_in_compliance_with_NPOV, #The_name_should_now_be_.22Climategate_scandal.22.2C_as_per_NPOV, Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_25#Need_non-involved_reactions, Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_25#Lead_not_reflective_of_the_article, Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Jones_e-mail_of_16_Nov_1999. Much of the talkpage space is dedicated to concerns about WP:NPOV (with a recent focus on WP:UNDUE). Note that all of these examples are post-rewrite.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's the current POV dispute over the article's name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not taking any stance, but whoever tags it could at least use {{POV-title}} so people who come here know what's meant. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you conceptually, but in this case there are also concerns about WP:Undue (see last three links I just provided).--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There are also serious POV problems with the current article lead and the lack of any reactions from anyone uninvolved with the incident. The tag needs to remain, but unfortunately I can't readd it due to this silly editing restriction. Oren0 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem with the lede now? The wording reflects a significant consensus that was worked out in this discussion. In fact, it drew almost unanimous support from the "skeptical group". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed that I changed to support specifically reserving the right to address the NPOV inclusion of personal threats in the lede. RL has prevented me from pursuing it, and I'm barely (not even) keeping current on the discussion, but this is just one minor example of a NPOV failure.SPhilbrick T 15:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to re-adding now? The restrictions have been appropriately lightened.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are objections - don't edit war over a tag without discussing it. Of the list you give, discounting those that are archived and so died out as discussions and are not now current, and discounting those related to the title (which requires a different tag, has been escalated to 'enforcement', and is now being debated elsewhere), we are left with #Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999. The discussion above seems to have resulted in a constructive edit and collegiate, ongoing discussion. There is no POV impasse there that I can see. Your attempt to have me sanctioned via my talk page seems to have been unproductive too. Where is the sourced content debate that is getting nowhere, that means that this whole article has a POV issue "determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."* --Nigelj (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nigel, but you weren't supposed to remove the tag until the dispute was resolved. It specifically said, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Did you not see this? You shouldn't remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally felt the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved. Can you please show us where this consensus has been reached? Perhaps in a show of good faith, you will consider self-reverting? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-add the {{POV}} tag as outlined above. Both the title and the lead is disputed as indicated. Nsaa (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove the tag, it was removed last week in this edit by Nightmote after a major re-write of the article. I reverted its meaningless and commentless re-addition. All this is above, along with my requests to anybody who wants to re-add it again. Please read the discussion thread before asking me to repeat it all for you. --Nigelj (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, reverting the addition of a tag looks a lot like removing it where I'm standing [2]. People have given some of the NPOV contentions in this thread. Would you be opposed to me re-adding the tag at this point?--Heyitspeter (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's all to do with timing: Nightmote removed the tag on 3 February during a major re-write of the article that was under discussion by several editors at the time. The consensus on that removal held for best part of a week until AQFN re-added it on 7 February 2010, saying "Re-added {POV} tag. Not sure how this got deleted". I reverted that addition 40 mins later and started this discussion. If AQFN was adding it because he didn't know why it was deleted, he should have checked the edit history like I did, or followed the talk page to see what was going on (i.e. a major re-write). Not re-added it with no rationale other than that he hadn't personally been following the article or the talk.

Now, all you are doing is asking me to read the article and the talk page history, and this thread, and repeat it for you. How about reading my comment above, added this morning, and replying to that? Which part of the discussion at [[#Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999 is so locked in well-sourced POV arguments that we need a POV tag on the whole of this article? The section on that e-mail is no longer even in this article but at Climatic Research Unit documents now. If you can find the POV issue with the article text "determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors"* that cannot and has not been resolved by discussion, then we can talk about adding a tag to the section that that argument relates to, not the whole article. --Nigelj (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The "section(s)" it relates to are, as pointed out in this section of the talkpage: the title, the lead, the e-mail and the responses sections. That is to say, all of them. So I'm going to readd this tag now. A glance through this particular section of the talkpage should be enough to confirm that it is appropriate. We can work through these issues together. --Heyitspeter (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, excuse me for butting in, but exactly what is the purpose of a POV tag? Is it to say that the article is POV, or that there is an active disagreement over POV? It seems inevitable that there will be some people who believe the article is biased and therefore believe it has a POV problem. If we were to edit the article so it met their standards for neutrality, then those editors who think the article is just fine now would think it has a POV problem. So it seems there may be a perpetual POV dispute. If we all know that already, what is the point of using the tag to say so? What does a casual reader get from seeing that tag? These may sound like rhetorical questions but I mean them earnestly. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it exists to let readers know that there is a lack of consensus regarding the article of Most Interested Persons, and that they might want to evaluate the title/claims/sources of an article with more skepticism than usual? Moogwrench (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It's a badge of shame. Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

shrug. I was thinking more as editing motivation for editors coming across an article that has repeatedly/recently been the object of NPOV (often its UNDUE subsection) concerns. I don't see the article as the probable victim of a perpetual NPOV dispute. I'm open to discussing this, though. I didn't think of that consideration.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What circumstances would lead you to accept removal of the tag? Is it merely that the article is not named Climategate? Why was the suggestion to use POV-title rejected, if that's the case? If not, please formulate a comprehensive list of actual changes that would need to be made to the article to either remove the POV tag, or replace it with POV-title. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Heyitspeter, which part of this discussion do you believe gave you consensus to re-add the POV tag??! One reply back, you were shrugging, saying you hadn't thought of points people were raising, and that you were willing to discuss this. This is precisely the kind contentious behaviour that probation is meant to reduce, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The article actually isn't too bad currently as far as NPOV goes. If the word "alleged" was placed in front of every instance of the use of the word "hacked", I think the POV tag could be removed. Cla68 (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I see consistent problems with WP:UNDUE violations, particularly in that the article covers the alleged hack more than it does the controversy itself. I'm adding some of this in now, though. Take a look at the edition and see if it fits. If so I'd be inclined to support removing the tag.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate this bit. Once the tag is in place, the 'masters of the universe' start handing down their *unsourced* conditions for its removal. No. As far as I'm concerned it's there for life now. I will not negotiate with pure political or personal opinion, sans WP:RS. --Nigelj (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

One doesn't source conditions for tag removal. RSs don't report any such conditions. Can you (re)explain your concern? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, one sources for tag addition. Have a look at Template:POV, especially the last point in the usage notes: "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." Since you can't raise a single well-sourced discussion here, then I draw your attention to point 2: "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." --Nigelj (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits to the lead

←Recent edits completely ignore the consensus so carefully worked out just recently. These should be self-reverted - some arguably violate an ArbCom interaction restriction. In fact, any changes that might have the slightest hint of being controversial should be discussed on the talk page first. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking in horror at the same diffs. I agree, CoM should self-revert asap. --Nigelj (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The user in question may need a user talk page notification (which I am unable to do). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of the edit:

"had been" -> "were"
- No, "it was discovered that...documents had been obtained..." not "it was discovered that...documents were obtained..." Basic grammar.
"The subsequent dissemination of the material caused a controversy, dubbed "Climategate", regarding whether or not the e-mails indicated misconduct by climate scientists" -> "The unauthorised release of the documents and the contents of the e-mails resulted in a controversy, dubbed "Climategate", regarding whether there was misconduct by climate scientists or an attempt to undermine the Copenhagen summit on Climate Change by sceptics. "
- Actually everything CoM added to the article has been removed from the article (and no, I don't mean "spun off into the daughter article"), making it inappropriate for the lead. But more to the point, "climategate" what evidence is there that "climategate" was used to describe the attempt to undermine Copenhagen? "Swifthack", maybe, but not "climategate".
"The UEA"->"The University"
- Don't see why the latter abbrev. is better, but it shouldn't be capitalised, since it isn't a proper noun.
UEA-> the scientists
- This is not what the cited sources say. The cited sources say that the UEA failed to act.

Guettarda (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

a) most of the edits made in the diff provided involve trading synonyms for synonyms. ease bring this up in an appropriate (new?) section. This is a fork(done)--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not synonyms for synonyms. The first one is the introduction of a grammatical error. The second changes the meaning and goes beyond the article content in a big way. The third is a synonym, but with a capitalisation error. And isn't worth keeping. The fourth changes the meaning, and deviates from the sources. Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it helps to reread diffs especially where the editor has demonstrated a POV before, as this can color interpretation. It usually does in my case.

If you look at the diffs, the only change that doesn't involve either an extremely close approximation of the earlier version or a simple and straightforward pronominal substitution is the second, where CoM added the clause, "...or an attempt to undermine the Copenhagen summit on Climate Change by sceptics." I agree that this clause, while supported by the article, should be removed as per WP:UNDUE, but it's not worth bringing to the talk. Anyone can remove it with a short edit summary.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Good call, Guettarda, there were changes of meaning which I didn't notice. A bit tired at this time of evening. . . dave souza, talk 21:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, Heyitspeter, I have discussed each of the changes I objected to here. So let's try again:

Do you disagree with my assertion that "it was discovered that...documents were obtained..." is ungrammatical? If so, please explain why.
You agree that the second statement, at least, is problematic. Correct?
"The UEA"->"The University" is trivial. But it introduces a slight error. And, quite frankly, using "the university" is a bit of an affectation. Trivial, but not worth restoring.
Finally, saying that "the scientists" were at fault on the FOI deviates from the source in a way that isn't trivial. While I don't know the specifics of UK law, FOI requests are usually made to institutions, not individuals. They are normally sent to legal departments, or something of the sort. And the onus is (normally) on the institution. Regardless of what CoM intended, this change introduces a change in meaning which is inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I suppose I can't speak for Britain, but it's a very commonly used construction in American English. I searched "It was discovered" alongside "were" and the second link that came up was from KOMO News: "Five Transportation Security Administration employees have been placed on administrative leave since it was discovered that sensitive guidelines about airport passenger screening were posted on the Internet."
I agree the second addition was a poor choice (as per WP:UNDUE), but the motivation is comprehensible and it's certainly not worthy of censure.
I agree it's trivial.
No. It's made to individuals. The IOC quote from the bottom of the timeline reads: "Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information" (my emphasis).

Even if you were right, this could easily have been reverted independently, and if it had to be brought up it should have been brought up at CoM's talkpage, not here. This comes across as an attempt at public shaming.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert to earlier version of the article?

Hey. I'd like to do a regular old poll to test consensus on this deletion of coverage of the emails. The edit was based on a possible consensus obtained in a three-option straw poll about which several editors expressed confusion. As a result it's not clear what the consensus is, and this will hopefully disambiguate the issue. This poll only concerns whether or not to revert the deletion, but if you have a more subtle position feel free to indicate that alongside your vote.

Revert the edit

Keep the edit

Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This edit was simply a restoration after a previous edit that had no consensus. Poll is a complete waste of time. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It's good to start from a concise basis. . . dave souza, talk 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yilloslime ^T_C 21:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Verbal chat 08:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit the edit

Could you detail what information you'd like reincluded so we could improve the article? Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Briefly mentioning the main topics of the previous subheadings would be worthwhile, kept to two or three short sentences. . . dave souza, talk 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Totally on board. Go crazy. Hipocrite (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Assuming that we keep sub-article, I think that this section should be expanded a bit. A good paragraph should be sufficient. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we simply copy and paste the summary for the sub article here? On a side note, I sometimes wonder why Wikipedia doesn't do this programmaticly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I think there is some general consensus that the summary should be larger than it is presently, but smaller than CoM's reverted edit. The main difference appears to be between those who want to work from smaller to bigger vs. those that wish to pare the larger one down. Maybe, like AQFK suggested, we can get a sample to tinker with, perhaps at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/sandbox or pasted in the discussion. I am still not convinced of the necessity of the sub-article, but if we must have it, then we do need to amplify that summary.Moogwrench (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Err, agree, as demonstrated by my edits to the article. The resulting version seems more or less okay to me for reasons stated in my edit summary. Any thoughts? I'm down to self-revert sections if faced with good reason.--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a more complete description of the issues and controversies related to the e-mails needs to be restored. (I haven't looked yet to see what Hey has done and am voting based on the options offered in case this poll is cited going forward as far as a consensus on what needs to be covered in this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

The POV tag on this article was removed in this edit by Nightmote. Discussion about the tag and its purpose had long-since died down here and this was a bold and noble edit. Then it was re-added by AQFN for no apparent reason and with no section created on Talk outlining specific POV issues. I have reverted this addition and invite anyone who feels that there is a POV issue with the article to explain exactly what it is here, so that we can decide whether to add {who}, {dubious}, {cn} or other tags to disputed sentences; POV tags to specific sections; or if there are several issues distributed throughout the article, perhaps re-instate a top-level POV tag, and begin systematically working through the list of realistic issues provided. Placing a POV tag at the top of such an active article as this, with no list of issues and so no possibility of finding ways that it can ever be removed by diligent editing, seems to me to be unhelpful at this stage. --Nigelj (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? You're seriously trying to say there isn't a NPOV dispute? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of any current neutrality dispute. After the recent massive changes by Nightmore and Hipocrite, there's very little of the article left to argue about! -- Scjessey (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That made me laugh! But it was exactly what I was aiming for. Nightmote (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Search this talkpage for "NPOV" and you'll see numerous disputes of this article regarding that policy. This can give you a sense of the issues that need to be sorted out. Note that it is not common practice to give a list of contentions within the NPOV tag.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the point Scjessey is making is that the tag was added to an earlier, very substantially different version of the article. It is not necessarily appropriate now that the article has been changed drastically. What are the remaining POV disputes? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

All from the past 4-5 days: #Failure_to_produce_compelling_counterargument.3B_name_changed_in_compliance_with_NPOV, #The_name_should_now_be_.22Climategate_scandal.22.2C_as_per_NPOV, Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_25#Need_non-involved_reactions, Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_25#Lead_not_reflective_of_the_article, Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Jones_e-mail_of_16_Nov_1999. Much of the talkpage space is dedicated to concerns about WP:NPOV (with a recent focus on WP:UNDUE). Note that all of these examples are post-rewrite.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's the current POV dispute over the article's name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not taking any stance, but whoever tags it could at least use {{POV-title}} so people who come here know what's meant. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you conceptually, but in this case there are also concerns about WP:Undue (see last three links I just provided).--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There are also serious POV problems with the current article lead and the lack of any reactions from anyone uninvolved with the incident. The tag needs to remain, but unfortunately I can't readd it due to this silly editing restriction. Oren0 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem with the lede now? The wording reflects a significant consensus that was worked out in this discussion. In fact, it drew almost unanimous support from the "skeptical group". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed that I changed to support specifically reserving the right to address the NPOV inclusion of personal threats in the lede. RL has prevented me from pursuing it, and I'm barely (not even) keeping current on the discussion, but this is just one minor example of a NPOV failure.SPhilbrick T 15:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to re-adding now? The restrictions have been appropriately lightened.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are objections - don't edit war over a tag without discussing it. Of the list you give, discounting those that are archived and so died out as discussions and are not now current, and discounting those related to the title (which requires a different tag, has been escalated to 'enforcement', and is now being debated elsewhere), we are left with #Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999. The discussion above seems to have resulted in a constructive edit and collegiate, ongoing discussion. There is no POV impasse there that I can see. Your attempt to have me sanctioned via my talk page seems to have been unproductive too. Where is the sourced content debate that is getting nowhere, that means that this whole article has a POV issue "determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."* --Nigelj (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nigel, but you weren't supposed to remove the tag until the dispute was resolved. It specifically said, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Did you not see this? You shouldn't remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally felt the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved. Can you please show us where this consensus has been reached? Perhaps in a show of good faith, you will consider self-reverting? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-add the {{POV}} tag as outlined above. Both the title and the lead is disputed as indicated. Nsaa (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove the tag, it was removed last week in this edit by Nightmote after a major re-write of the article. I reverted its meaningless and commentless re-addition. All this is above, along with my requests to anybody who wants to re-add it again. Please read the discussion thread before asking me to repeat it all for you. --Nigelj (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, reverting the addition of a tag looks a lot like removing it where I'm standing [3]. People have given some of the NPOV contentions in this thread. Would you be opposed to me re-adding the tag at this point?--Heyitspeter (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's all to do with timing: Nightmote removed the tag on 3 February during a major re-write of the article that was under discussion by several editors at the time. The consensus on that removal held for best part of a week until AQFN re-added it on 7 February 2010, saying "Re-added {POV} tag. Not sure how this got deleted". I reverted that addition 40 mins later and started this discussion. If AQFN was adding it because he didn't know why it was deleted, he should have checked the edit history like I did, or followed the talk page to see what was going on (i.e. a major re-write). Not re-added it with no rationale other than that he hadn't personally been following the article or the talk.

Now, all you are doing is asking me to read the article and the talk page history, and this thread, and repeat it for you. How about reading my comment above, added this morning, and replying to that? Which part of the discussion at [[#Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999 is so locked in well-sourced POV arguments that we need a POV tag on the whole of this article? The section on that e-mail is no longer even in this article but at Climatic Research Unit documents now. If you can find the POV issue with the article text "determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors"* that cannot and has not been resolved by discussion, then we can talk about adding a tag to the section that that argument relates to, not the whole article. --Nigelj (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The "section(s)" it relates to are, as pointed out in this section of the talkpage: the title, the lead, the e-mail and the responses sections. That is to say, all of them. So I'm going to readd this tag now. A glance through this particular section of the talkpage should be enough to confirm that it is appropriate. We can work through these issues together. --Heyitspeter (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, excuse me for butting in, but exactly what is the purpose of a POV tag? Is it to say that the article is POV, or that there is an active disagreement over POV? It seems inevitable that there will be some people who believe the article is biased and therefore believe it has a POV problem. If we were to edit the article so it met their standards for neutrality, then those editors who think the article is just fine now would think it has a POV problem. So it seems there may be a perpetual POV dispute. If we all know that already, what is the point of using the tag to say so? What does a casual reader get from seeing that tag? These may sound like rhetorical questions but I mean them earnestly. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it exists to let readers know that there is a lack of consensus regarding the article of Most Interested Persons, and that they might want to evaluate the title/claims/sources of an article with more skepticism than usual? Moogwrench (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It's a badge of shame. Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

shrug. I was thinking more as editing motivation for editors coming across an article that has repeatedly/recently been the object of NPOV (often its UNDUE subsection) concerns. I don't see the article as the probable victim of a perpetual NPOV dispute. I'm open to discussing this, though. I didn't think of that consideration.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What circumstances would lead you to accept removal of the tag? Is it merely that the article is not named Climategate? Why was the suggestion to use POV-title rejected, if that's the case? If not, please formulate a comprehensive list of actual changes that would need to be made to the article to either remove the POV tag, or replace it with POV-title. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Heyitspeter, which part of this discussion do you believe gave you consensus to re-add the POV tag??! One reply back, you were shrugging, saying you hadn't thought of points people were raising, and that you were willing to discuss this. This is precisely the kind contentious behaviour that probation is meant to reduce, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The article actually isn't too bad currently as far as NPOV goes. If the word "alleged" was placed in front of every instance of the use of the word "hacked", I think the POV tag could be removed. Cla68 (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I see consistent problems with WP:UNDUE violations, particularly in that the article covers the alleged hack more than it does the controversy itself. I'm adding some of this in now, though. Take a look at the edition and see if it fits. If so I'd be inclined to support removing the tag.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate this bit. Once the tag is in place, the 'masters of the universe' start handing down their *unsourced* conditions for its removal. No. As far as I'm concerned it's there for life now. I will not negotiate with pure political or personal opinion, sans WP:RS. --Nigelj (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

One doesn't source conditions for tag removal. RSs don't report any such conditions. Can you (re)explain your concern? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, one sources for tag addition. Have a look at Template:POV, especially the last point in the usage notes: "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." Since you can't raise a single well-sourced discussion here, then I draw your attention to point 2: "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." --Nigelj (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits to the lead

←Recent edits completely ignore the consensus so carefully worked out just recently. These should be self-reverted - some arguably violate an ArbCom interaction restriction. In fact, any changes that might have the slightest hint of being controversial should be discussed on the talk page first. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking in horror at the same diffs. I agree, CoM should self-revert asap. --Nigelj (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The user in question may need a user talk page notification (which I am unable to do). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of the edit:

"had been" -> "were"
- No, "it was discovered that...documents had been obtained..." not "it was discovered that...documents were obtained..." Basic grammar.
"The subsequent dissemination of the material caused a controversy, dubbed "Climategate", regarding whether or not the e-mails indicated misconduct by climate scientists" -> "The unauthorised release of the documents and the contents of the e-mails resulted in a controversy, dubbed "Climategate", regarding whether there was misconduct by climate scientists or an attempt to undermine the Copenhagen summit on Climate Change by sceptics. "
- Actually everything CoM added to the article has been removed from the article (and no, I don't mean "spun off into the daughter article"), making it inappropriate for the lead. But more to the point, "climategate" what evidence is there that "climategate" was used to describe the attempt to undermine Copenhagen? "Swifthack", maybe, but not "climategate".
"The UEA"->"The University"
- Don't see why the latter abbrev. is better, but it shouldn't be capitalised, since it isn't a proper noun.
UEA-> the scientists
- This is not what the cited sources say. The cited sources say that the UEA failed to act.

Guettarda (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

a) most of the edits made in the diff provided involve trading synonyms for synonyms. ease bring this up in an appropriate (new?) section. This is a fork(done)--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not synonyms for synonyms. The first one is the introduction of a grammatical error. The second changes the meaning and goes beyond the article content in a big way. The third is a synonym, but with a capitalisation error. And isn't worth keeping. The fourth changes the meaning, and deviates from the sources. Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it helps to reread diffs especially where the editor has demonstrated a POV before, as this can color interpretation. It usually does in my case.

If you look at the diffs, the only change that doesn't involve either an extremely close approximation of the earlier version or a simple and straightforward pronominal substitution is the second, where CoM added the clause, "...or an attempt to undermine the Copenhagen summit on Climate Change by sceptics." I agree that this clause, while supported by the article, should be removed as per WP:UNDUE, but it's not worth bringing to the talk. Anyone can remove it with a short edit summary.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Good call, Guettarda, there were changes of meaning which I didn't notice. A bit tired at this time of evening. . . dave souza, talk 21:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, Heyitspeter, I have discussed each of the changes I objected to here. So let's try again:

Do you disagree with my assertion that "it was discovered that...documents were obtained..." is ungrammatical? If so, please explain why.
You agree that the second statement, at least, is problematic. Correct?
"The UEA"->"The University" is trivial. But it introduces a slight error. And, quite frankly, using "the university" is a bit of an affectation. Trivial, but not worth restoring.
Finally, saying that "the scientists" were at fault on the FOI deviates from the source in a way that isn't trivial. While I don't know the specifics of UK law, FOI requests are usually made to institutions, not individuals. They are normally sent to legal departments, or something of the sort. And the onus is (normally) on the institution. Regardless of what CoM intended, this change introduces a change in meaning which is inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I suppose I can't speak for Britain, but it's a very commonly used construction in American English. I searched "It was discovered" alongside "were" and the second link that came up was from KOMO News: "Five Transportation Security Administration employees have been placed on administrative leave since it was discovered that sensitive guidelines about airport passenger screening were posted on the Internet."
I agree the second addition was a poor choice (as per WP:UNDUE), but the motivation is comprehensible and it's certainly not worthy of censure.
I agree it's trivial.
No. It's made to individuals. The IOC quote from the bottom of the timeline reads: "Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information" (my emphasis).

Even if you were right, this could easily have been reverted independently, and if it had to be brought up it should have been brought up at CoM's talkpage, not here. This comes across as an attempt at public shaming.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert to earlier version of the article?

Hey. I'd like to do a regular old poll to test consensus on this deletion of coverage of the emails. The edit was based on a possible consensus obtained in a three-option straw poll about which several editors expressed confusion. As a result it's not clear what the consensus is, and this will hopefully disambiguate the issue. This poll only concerns whether or not to revert the deletion, but if you have a more subtle position feel free to indicate that alongside your vote.

Revert the edit

Keep the edit

Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This edit was simply a restoration after a previous edit that had no consensus. Poll is a complete waste of time. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It's good to start from a concise basis. . . dave souza, talk 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yilloslime ^T_C 21:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Verbal chat 08:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit the edit

Could you detail what information you'd like reincluded so we could improve the article? Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Briefly mentioning the main topics of the previous subheadings would be worthwhile, kept to two or three short sentences. . . dave souza, talk 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Totally on board. Go crazy. Hipocrite (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Assuming that we keep sub-article, I think that this section should be expanded a bit. A good paragraph should be sufficient. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we simply copy and paste the summary for the sub article here? On a side note, I sometimes wonder why Wikipedia doesn't do this programmaticly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I think there is some general consensus that the summary should be larger than it is presently, but smaller than CoM's reverted edit. The main difference appears to be between those who want to work from smaller to bigger vs. those that wish to pare the larger one down. Maybe, like AQFK suggested, we can get a sample to tinker with, perhaps at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/sandbox or pasted in the discussion. I am still not convinced of the necessity of the sub-article, but if we must have it, then we do need to amplify that summary.Moogwrench (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Err, agree, as demonstrated by my edits to the article. The resulting version seems more or less okay to me for reasons stated in my edit summary. Any thoughts? I'm down to self-revert sections if faced with good reason.--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a more complete description of the issues and controversies related to the e-mails needs to be restored. (I haven't looked yet to see what Hey has done and am voting based on the options offered in case this poll is cited going forward as far as a consensus on what needs to be covered in this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Blogs as "press coverage"

The pressmult template featured one blog, and attempts have been made to add another (which was commented out, shown below)

{{pressmulti
 | collapsed=no
 | author=[[Lawrence Solomon]]
 | title=Lawrence Solomon: Better off with Bing
 | org=[[National Post]]
 | url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/16/lawrence-solomon-better-off-with-bing.aspx
 | date=2010-01-16
 | archiveurl = 
 | archivedate = 
 | quote = after asking for “climategate” find themselves on a Wikipedia page entitled “Climatic Research Unit hacking incident” that downplays the content of the emails and focuses on the “unauthorised release of thousands of emails 
<!- 
 Since James Delingpole is so contentious I will (Nsaa) not add it, but hopefully others have the nerve to do it. See the detailed discussion about the matter here
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_20#Pressmulti_-_removal_of_a_piece_with_millions_of_readers.3F_-_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia 
 | title2=Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia 
 | author2=[[James Delingpole]] 
 | date2= 2009-12-22 
 | url2= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/  
 | archiveurl2 = http://www.webcitation.org/5mEN1r8yk 
 | archivedate2 = 2009-12-23 
 | org2= [[The Telegraph]] 
->

In my view this template was giving inappropriate attention to unreliable sources, and these blogs don't justify inclusion of it as a header template. . . dave souza, talk 13:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been the standard use of the {{press}} template as I pointed out here Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Comment_by_Dmcq. Reinserts it. Nsaa (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with DS, and note that the second blog was inserted by NSAA multiple times, and was roundly rejected. I wonder why inserting blogs that mention this article in a sentence or two is so important to NSAA, especially given that the second blog piece is an offensive violation of BLP. I will never consent to the insertion of the second piece - it is a dealbreaker of innacuracy and offensiveness. Hipocrite (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Both blogs fail BLP, and as the second header points out, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". . . dave souza, talk 13:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

~~How does a blog that simply points out the weird title of this article violate BLP? That's utter nonsense.~~ Just realized that the "second blog" is an aggressive piece aimed -- at least in part -- at WMC. That said, it is disturbing that WMC is taking such a large role in the Climategate article, when he was himself a recipient of one of the messages. This would seem to be a huge COI. Unit Anode 13:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A. He's not taking such a large role, and B. Does getting sent an email create a conflict of interest? I don't see how being the recipient of an email that was included in a massive data-dump of emails and that has never come to anyone's attention at all is remotely a conflict of interest. Have you reviewed the emails that WMC is mentioned in? Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not just "getting sent an email", when that email was a part of a rather large scientific scandal. Unit Anode 13:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure the email he got sent was "part of a rather large scientific scandal," because it seems to me that "Most of the e-mails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences." Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So now Climategate isn't even a scandal? Good grief. Unit Anode 13:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I merely note that "The controversy has focused on a small number of e-mails, particularly those sent to or from climatologists Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, and Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University (PSU), one of the originators of the graph of temperature trends dubbed the "hockey stick graph."" Do you believe WMC was copied on any of the interesting emails? If so, which ones? Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The emails show a clear connection between WMC and the Climategate scientists -- particularly Phil Jones. This is the basis of my COI claim. He should either recuse himself, or be recused by motion, from further editing of these articles related to Climategate and Jones. Unit Anode 13:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so I understand - you are arguing everyone that sent Phil Jones or Michael Mann an email is barred from editing this article? Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am arguing that everyone who was CC-ed on any of the Climategate emails should be.

(undent) Sorry, let me try that again. The emails that are controversial are a small subset of the other emails, which "concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research." Are you saying that being in any email that was included in a massive dump of thousands of emails, the vast majority of which were uninteresting and mundane disqualifies you? Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made it clear: if a person was CC-ed by the man at the center of the scandal, in the emails that were stolen, then yes, that person is COI-ed out of participation in the discussions surrounding both the scandal and the BLPs of those involved in the scandal. Unit Anode 14:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So you have a conflict of interest if someone sends you an email, and that email is later stolen, even if nothing in the email is controvercial or interesting? I think your take on COI is unique and interesting. Perhaps you should see if you can get an editor who hasn't taken a position on climate change to agree with you that being the recipieient of an email can create a conflict of interest. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. If I happened to e-mail Phil Jones at some stage about something, say asking them whether they'd be in New Zealand any time soon because I was hoping they'd give a lecture on the compound eye of the common housefly, and he e-mailed me back saying he though I probably had the wrong person since he's involved in climate research and I e-mail him back apologising saying I'd intended to e-mail p.janes and he wrote me back saying no problem, and both of these were in the archive then I now have a COI, in fact I presume much worse then any WMC may have because Jones sent me two emails and so I definitely should avoid any and all involvement in editing this article?

Even if this is what you're saying, I'm confused. Why do these hypothetical e-mails have to be in the archives? Surely anyone who has ever been e-mailed by Phil Jones should be included. Perhaps don't limit it to him either. How about Mann as well? Maybe we should add an editnotice warning people they are forbidden from editing if they're ever been e-mail by Mann, Jones and whoever else we choose?

Incidentally are you aware that this 'large role' we're discussing is 11 edits out of the past 500? And in fact, one of these was apparently accidental (reverting a bot) and was quickly reverted by someone else, and there are also 2 self reverts which means we end up with only 8 or 6 (if we presume the edits associated with the self reverts never happend) out of 497/495. If this is a large role to you, what exactly is a small role?

BTW, what exactly do you mean 'COI-ed out of participation in the discussions ...... the BLPs of those involved in the scandal'? I hope you are aware that while our COI policy discourages people from editing articles if they have a COI (but doesn't forbid it), it encourages those people to air their concerns (provided their COI is declared) on the talk page and take part in the associated discussions instead. There's no such thing as a person being forbidden from taking part in a discussion because they have a COI it what they're supposed to do if they want to participate in an area where they have a COI (although if they allow the COI to get in the way, e.g. if they disrupt the discussion e.g. by continually bringing up issues other people find irrelevant or unimportant and refuse to accept consensus when it's reached if it goes against them then that's obviously an issue which will be dealt with appropriately as with all COI problems but that doesn't seem to be the case here since WMC is rarely alone in his views). If you aren't aware of this you probably should read the policy.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

@dave souza: Fails BLP=? Please. Read this for the outcommentet one: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive77#Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident. This doesn't fail. Some of your guys think that only say it enough times and it becomes true ... Nsaa (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

←Delingpole and Solomon are AGW skeptics, and they very clearly disapprove with Wikipedia's non-neutral coverage of this incident. We are under absolutely no obligation to give them another platform to spout their opinion about climate change or Wikipedia. You would need an overwhelming consensus for inclusion, and I see no possible way this is going to happen. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So now you get to declare what needs "overwhelming consensus for inclusion?" Sorry, no. Unit Anode 14:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't have a clue what you are talking about, Unitanode. This has already been discussed previously, and a consensus for exclusion remains. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware that a concerted effort has been put forth by a group of editors who have a very strong POV on the issue to "scrub" this and other articles, yes. Unit Anode 15:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you also well aware that a conserted effort has been put forth by a group of conservative activsts who have a very strong POV on the issue to "push" this and other articles? What does this have to do with including a press-multi to a bunch of blogs which are neither reliable sources (they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) nor really about this article at all? Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about on-wiki groups, not off-wiki ones. I'm a part of neither group. Unit Anode 15:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you alledging that there is no group of conservative activists who have also shown up as SPA's here to push this and other articles? Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on that issue. There are always going to be SPAs. What concerns me is that a group of established editors are stonewalling in favor of their own POV. Unit Anode 15:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What concerns me is that a group of unestablished editors are stonewalling in favor of their own POV, how ironic! Hipocrite (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's so far from the truth that I can't imagine it was unintentional. The current title is neologistic, hackneyed, and holds WP up for deserved ridicule. The stonewalling is coming from a group of established editors pushing for their own POV. Unit Anode 15:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you think I'm talking about the title. I'm not. I'm talking about unestablished editors stonewalling on splitting the article and moving it to summary style. I'm talking about unestablished editors stonewalling on cutting down the article to only the points that matter. I guess the only part of the article you're paying attention to is the title? Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How can we incorporate this series by The Guardian into the various GW articles?

Cross-posted from Talk:Global warming, as several of these directly affect this article, and the discussions we are having here.

Part 1 -- "Battle over climate data turned into war between scientists and sceptics"Whether it was democracy in action, or defence against malicious attempts to disrupt research, climate scientists were driven to siege mentality by persistence of sceptics
Part 2 -- "How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies"Claims based on email soundbites are demonstrably false – there is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation
Part 3 -- "Hockey stick graph took pride of place in IPCC report, despite doubts"Emails expose tension between desire for scrupulous honesty, and desire to tell simple story to tell the policymakers
Part 4 -- "Climate change debate overheated after sceptic grasped 'hockey stick'"Steve McIntyre pursued graph's creator Michael Mann, but replication of his temperature spike has earned him credibility
Part 5 -- "Changing weather posts in China led to accusations of scientific fraud"Climate emails suggest Phil Jones may have attempted to cover up flawed temperature data
Part 6 -- "Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics"Peer review has been put under strain by conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions
Part 7 -- "Victory for openness as IPCC climate scientist opens up lab doors"Ben Santer had a change of heart about data transparency despite being hectored and abused by rabid climate sceptics
Part 8 -- "Climate scientists contradicted spirit of openness by rejecting information requests"Hacked emails reveal systematic attempts to block requests from sceptics — and deep frustration at anti-global warming agenda
Part 9 -- "Climate scientists withheld Yamal data despite warnings from senior colleagues"Ancient trees dragged from frozen Siberian bogs do not undermine climate science, despite what the sceptics say
Part 10 -- "Search for hacker may lead police back to East Anglia's climate research unit"Truth could turn out more embarrassing for university, but CRU 'dissidents', a corporate leak ahead of Copenhagen or bloggers intent on data 'liberation' are all still in the frame.
Part 11 -- "'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review"Peer-review was meant to be a safeguard against the publication of bad science but the balance is shifting towards open access
Part 12 -- "Climate science emails cannot destroy argument that world is warming, and humans are responsible"Climate science can no longer afford to be a closed shop or over-simplify the complexities of a changing climate if it is to reclaim credibility

The information found in these articles needs to be incorporated into the GW suite of articles, and it needs to happen quickly. The series is a treasure trove of information, and appears to be pretty pro-AGW, while not denying the major problems caused by Climategate. How should we deal with this series of articles? Unit Anode 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Some is news, much is analysis, some is comment. We need to incorporate the important bits that we do not already cover, but we don't need to be in a hurry. WP:RECENT applies. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assertion that WP:RECENT applies here. This is an unprecedented series of articles, by a respected, reliable source. There is no reason not to include a lot of information from this series based upon a gross misapplication of RECENT, or NOTNEWS. These are by far the two guidelines most commonly misused to keep new information out of the GW suite of articles. It's not going to happen this time. The discussion is about how to include the information, not if it should be included. Unit Anode 18:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you are trying to seize control to me. There are several issues to consider here, not least of which is the fact we don't want to rely on one source for a large chunk of information. There may be a combination of WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT issues as well. Pull out a few things that you consider are important and make formal text change/addition proposals so that we can have a proper consensus discussion about them. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And, even if it were in contravention to WP:RECENT, who cares? It's an ESSAY for cripe's sake! Now, let's focus on how to use this series of interesting an informative articles. Unit Anode 18:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying WP:RECENT should be used as a block for any of this material. I'm just saying that we should not rush. The article was marred for a long time by having been cobbled together quickly in the first days. And then some kind editors did a major rewrite. Now we have a reasonable structure, lets not mess it up again. I've read a lot of this material and it does seem to be mainly analysis rather than new fact. But if there is stuff you really like there, why not start off by pulling out 3 or 4 statements that you think should be added and we can discuss them here. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to Unitanode for raising this here, the series forms a detailed analysis and overview, not a collection of news stories. For a start, pert 12 provides a useful basis for an outline analysis of the context and issues raised. In terms of impact, a news story on US climate monitoring information service gets go-ahead in Washington links it to the email "controversy". See also Agency Will Create National Climate Service to Spur Adaptation - NYTimes.com. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Souza here. I really don't care where this series leads, but the work done by The Guardian in this case is outstanding, and merits inclusion in our suite of global warming articles, particularly the ones surrounding Climategate. It's not about "ownership" here, it's about focusing this particular discussion on the "hows" not the "ifs." Unit Anode 19:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No, these articles can't be used because they are not from peer-reviewed, scientific publications. Just kidding. I would suggest simply going to the appropriate articles, including this one, and start adding the information. I'll try to help out later today if I find time. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

needs to be incorporated into the GW suite of articles, and it needs to happen quickly - you've spammed this elsewhere, but the answer is the same: Both assertions are false. That there is no urgency to this is obvious; indeed the reverse is obvious: taht we should *not* rush to put new sources in. And the *need* to incorporate them is not obvious. Some parts might be valuable, who knows William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Cut the bullshit, Connolley. I did not "spam" it. I placed it here, and at Talk:Global warming. Stop making ludicrous accusations. Unit Anode 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, are you willing to commit to assisting in adding any useful information contained in those sources, whether it be "positive" or "negative" about AGW, to the appropriate articles? Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they will. Just read the the 11 article which states "The initial response from both the emailers and their employers was to condemn the hackers and ignore what they hacked."'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review. This is the same tactic most of our AGW editors has used^{[citation needed]} as far as I can see (hack, stolen has been the important part, not the suppress of the per review process, turned down FOI request, you name it) Nsaa (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh! You mean they didn't put hacked in scare quotes? Or say 'allegedly hacked'? Shall I go and fix the wording in the lede of the article using this ref? Is there a couple of re-name discussions in various places we can close now? --Nigelj (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can everyone please calm down?

This series is not one-sided in either direction. Sourcing using it would give a much better balance to the articles, and would not provide one "side" any advantage over the other. Scott aka UnitAnode 15:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you could usefully contribute towards the calming down by posting less, and being less provocative. You are part of the cause, not the solution. And: to state the obvious: using a psuedo-neutral "calm down" section to push your partisan viewpoint isn't helpful William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a "partisan viewpoint", Connolley. If you'd chill out long enough to read what I've actually been writing, you'd see that. Scott aka UnitAnode 16:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Of of course not - you're the one unbiased person here, how silly of me not to realise that. But in this case, the partisan viewpoint you're pushing is Sourcing using it would... - that is your viewpoint. Others disagree. You should not be using a "calm down" section to push your POV (you see, there is more than one sort of POV; it doesn't have to be just pro- or anti- GW. If you'd chill out long enough to read what I've actually been writing, you'd see that William M. Connolley (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this particular series will end up being the best source. It's certainly a good starting point for people doing research, but there are much better sources available (such as the ones I pointed out from Nature, those from John Tierney of the New York Times, etc.) ScienceApologist (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? The Guardian isn't partisan, and it doesn't have some hidden agenda. Scott aka UnitAnode 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's very naive. Every newspaper has a certain bias, and every newspaper has a hidden agenda (and sometimes it isn't hidden at all). The Guardian has always had a left wing bias, for example. The Telegraph has always had a right wing bias. I've noticed, in fact, that British newspapers in general seem to have a degree of AGW skepticism. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So then, if anything, The Guardian would have a slightly pro-AGW tilt, I think you're saying. And yet, it's a couple of pro-AGW editors that are seemingly the most agitated about this series? Why? Scott aka UnitAnode 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying the opposite. British media tends to be anti-AGW, if anything. Just to clarify, a position on AGW is largely independent of political bias, but the reverse isn't necessarily true. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We here at WP are not arbiters of the truth but the aggregators of others' reports of the "Truth", right or wrong. We say what WP:RS say. Newspapers are WP:RS. The bias of UK newspapers is hardly the point. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to be an "arbiter of the truth". I was just making an interesting observation. This Guardian series has been setup as the Holy Grail, when really it is no more or less reliable than any other reliable source that has been introduced. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers are reliable. The Guardian is reliable. ATren (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The conversation is about bias, not reliability. And "reliability" is only one aspect of the whole question of sourcing. Accuracy and balance are also important. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be setting yourself up as the arbiter of accuracy and balance. If the Grauniad is not good enough for you then it seems you will never approve anything as a RS unless it agrees with your POV. Fortunately it is not up to you, or, at least, it ought not to be. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading the whole series, overall it gives what seems to me a pretty good balance. The Grauniad has a good track record for accuracy, but that doesn't mean that we take statements uncritically. For example, this article in its closing paragraphs refers to the hockey stick being shown without error bars in the IPCC summary, which is probably correct, but should be taken in the context that the graph with error bars was included in the IPCC report, according to this. Something to check to avoid a misleading impression. . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In general, newspapers are good for summarizing what the external perspective on science is. However, this article is, in part, about how scientists operate internally. We could use better sources than a newspaper for understanding that subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Journalists, scientists should cover climate science truthfully

This article Journalists, scientists should cover climate science truthfully (archived) in The State News ("Conservative critics argue that The State News has a liberal lean") by Fred Fico [4], Michigan State University journalism professor is quite interesting and have some comments about the area covered in this article. He says for example "Related to this, journalists need to realize that science sources, like other sources, can and will spin what they tell journalists, especially when their money and prestige are at stake. Certainly, the East Anglia e-mails indicate the creators of the climate change models privately had more doubt about the precision and reliability of those models than they publicly expressed. And the glacier gate scandal illuminates deliberate attempts to influence publicity and opinion. The admission of blatantly political motives to influence opinion on the part of the scientist involved in glaciergate should give any journalist pause.". This is maybe to specific to be included in the article? Nsaa (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed personal attack Nightmote (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Well, its wrong, so that is a poor start (it is entirely correct that science should be covered truthfully, of course). From your summary it appears to completely ignore the thoroughly mendacious reporting from the bulk of the media over this issue. No, we shouldn't use yet another piece of journo tripe that just happens to fit with your POV William M. Connolley (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that tone is called for at all. I'd be surprised if it turned out to be a useful source, though, because the purpose of the article seems to be to warn journalists to take care with spin on science stories, simply using this as an example. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the good old State News. Main issue here: Fico is a journalism professor, not a science professor, so while we should take his advice to journalists seriously, we shouldn't put too much weight on his opinions about science. The State News is an excellent college newspaper, but it's still just a college newspaper. An Op-Ed by an MSU professor probably doesn't receive a whole lot of editorial oversight. After all, the editors are probably his students. It's a reliable source for Fico's opinion, but there's no reason to assume that he's an expert on science. In fact, the page Nsaa linked to says that "[h]is research interests focus on news coverage of conflict". Guettarda (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: You state that "Well, its wrong, so that is a poor start". What is wrong in what he states in my quote? Just declaring it doesn't make it wrong. The first thing I qoute is "can and will spin what they tell journalists". If you have remotley followed this you know that the Glaciergate exactly revealed this [5] [6] "The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.". The second one is this "the East Anglia e-mails indicate the creators of the climate change models privately had more doubt about the precision and reliability of those models than they publicly expressed". This has been discussed in length. Even we have some of it at Climatic_Research_Unit_documents#Trenberth_e-mail_of_12_Oct_2009. Nsaa (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading his comment, I believe he's talking about the article, not your quote from it. And yes, he seems to have gotten things wrong on the science. Guettarda (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what? (this tactic just committing usourced claims make the discussion much harder) Nsaa (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying. Guettarda (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nsaa's saying he/she's not sure what Fred Fico got wrong with the science Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it lacks notability and (honestly) applicability. If the State News article raises public ire and a politician calls for an investigation, the politician's demands, the subsequent investigation, and the outcome are what matters. This seems to be more of a wine-and-cheese college dorm debate than something more concrete. I don't want to be misunderstood: I think that the UEA/CRU scandal is real; that a full third-party audit of their activities is called for; and that identified instances of wrongdoing should be brutally punished. But this news article seems too vague for me. Nightmote (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the article is terrible. I guess Fred Fico believes that journalists should police scientific journals. Maybe they should also police law journals, economic reports, mathematical proofs, and dictionaries too? I guess journalists are the smartest people on the planet and Fred Fico is prepared to use his infinite knowledge to condemn all those who are wrong. Really poor argumentation and essentially a soapbox. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, the East Anglia e-mails indicate the creators of the climate change models privately had more doubt about the precision and reliability of those models than they publicly expressed. And the glacier gate scandal illuminates deliberate attempts to influence publicity and opinion are both wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

@WMC: ""The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders."". So the last is NOT wrong. I just gave you a secondary source for the second time. You gave me none. The first one is just reading some of the famous emails... that even we quote. Nsaa (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read more widely. "Certainly, the East Anglia e-mails indicate the creators of the climate change models privately had more doubt about the precision and reliability of those models than they publicly expressed." is dubious and misleading, as the published papers included extensive discussion of the precision and reliability, as did the WGI IPCC reports. The spin about "deliberate attempts to influence publicity and opinion" is silly, as the IPCC itself is about presenting agreed information to influence public policy and opinion. It probably refers to an interview where an unreliable newspaper interviewed a scientist, then, according to that scientist, misrepresented his remarks. We've discussed that on the relevant article talk page. So, yes, there is a need for journalists to cover stories more truthfully. As discussed by a reliable source at Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies. That's an aspect we should cover. . . dave souza, talk 11:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Collapse personal attack and off topic discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

WMC, you never have a doubt, do you? Your abandonment of scientific skepticism serves an inspiration to us all. Decide what's true then follow that star. Good on yer! Nightmote (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nightmote, that's a clear personal attack. It's totally unhelpful. Please retract it. Guettarda (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly it's a mild personal attack but I think it is helpful. WMC states as truth that which is not obviously so yet he fails to support it with argument. Some claim he is not a Climategate insider, it is asserted he does not have a COI, yet he reasons as if he has privileged insider knowledge. We must just believe what he says cos he says it? Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Guettarda, if WMC doesn't have the patience to properly phrase his position I feel very little inclination to listen to it. I took the time to craft what I think is a thoughtful reply to Nsaa's post. WMC took the time to pompously claim "wrong!". What insight. Brilliant. Perhaps we should all take a page from his book and lower every debate to that level. Or maybe - maybe! - we could try treating each other civilly and seeking consensus through debate. I think I read that somewhere once. WMC can be thoughtful and informative when he cares to be, but he seems to take AGW skepticism personally and to treat AGW skeptics dismissively and in Bad Faith. It's well past time he was called on that. Nightmote (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave demonstrates my point. He read the post, made a criticism, and advanced a position. Whether I agree with him or not is irrelevent; his approach advances the debate. WMC is supposed to be an expert in this field. His expertise is wasted if he is unable to thoughtfully voice his position. Nightmote (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda - " ... its wrong ... poor start ... we shouldn't use yet another piece of journo tripe that just happens to fit with your POV ... " You might have missed these little jabs earlier in the exchange. If you're going to take the time to police civility on this talk page, do it right. Nightmote (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing that you have said since being asked to retract the personal attack has justified it. BigK HeX (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Policy says not to comment on people. "Your abandonment of scientific skepticism" is a clear personal attack. If he were still employed as a scientist, it would count as "adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade" which, as I'm sure you know, might land you in trouble. Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Personal attacks are never justified, "BigK". Which is why I didn't attack WMC (the definition of a personal attack can be found here). WMC has been criticized (and blocked) in the past for disruptive editing, being pointy, and for being uncivil. I think that I understand WMC's frustration with those who don't have his background. I even think I understand his frustration with having to state over and over again what to him must appear to be simple fact. However, if one insists on acting like an arrogant ass, one must expect to be hitched and driven from time to time. Why, exactly, Guettarda demanded an apology I'm not sure. Certainly if WMC asked for an apology I would engage him in civil discourse on his or my talk page. He hasn't asked for one. I could speculate as to why, but the most likely reason is that WMC has a thick skin, can take care of himself, and is aware (and untroubled) that he sometimes abrasive. One could reasonably ask why I felt the need to say a damned thing to WMC about anything, as I wasn't part of the initial exchange. My answer, (which would be found on my talk page) would likely be civil. Nightmote (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda - Your statement is overly dramatic to say the least. I believe I have stated my position reasonably clearly: WMC is an expert with an opinion. If he wishes to take issue with my criticism of his presentation, he is welcome to do so. Nightmote (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It still violates our policy on personal attacks. Please remove it. Guettarda (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack it is a criticism of WMCs well-identified strongly-held beliefs. Why are you exaggerating what had been a minor exchange before you got involved? Nightmote (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Almost every comment since I last logged in yesterday has revolved around Nightmote's personal attack against WMC. Please end this argument now. Nightmote's comment was rude, and it should be retracted, but it probably wasn't worth this many column inches. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope WMC and his comrades get long blocks for provoke this kind of reactions. They do it deliberately to get rid of their opponents (that mainly has not so long experience of the climate area at the en-wiki). Nsaa (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You exhibit remarkable awareness of the pitfalls hereabouts but then equally remarkably fall into the trap. Its all about aim, and yours is a bit too direct to keep the shot from boomeranging. JPatterson (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting perspective

Interesting perspective on the whole affair, and an actual argument in favour of "climategate", from John Quiggin [7] Not that it's any less POV coming from the other side. Guettarda (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yay, more vague accusations of a vast rightwing conspiracy to read some climate scientists professional email, but I get your point. Ignignot (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'm not in favor of the idea that "balance" is what is needed, but there are so many wingnuts parading around conspiracy theories about the activities of CRU scientists even on this page that a little bit of paranoia in the other direction smells of a breath of fresh air. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The line "I'm just not sure whether the whole body of scientific evidence put forward by thousands of climate researchers during several decades of peer-reviewed work is all a vast pinko conspiracy to undermine the core values of the United States of America, or not" is hardly neutral. That is an extreme fringe 'War on Science' stance, as this article says. Such a view doesn't really deserve serious consideration, other than maybe to analyse the damage done by it worldwide in an article like POoCC or POoCC(US). The trouble with the interesting take on the name climategate from Quiggin is that it's too subtle for our friends here, or their readers, who as the author says, have lost their moral and intellectual bearings to such an extent that much more basic points are passing them by, not just the subtleties of who was who in the original Watergate burglary story. So, no, 'balance' regarding such lines is not required at all. --Nigelj (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Duh, it was Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. Ignignot (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that is the problem with presupposing that "Climategate" has to mean a particular thing to those who propose it as a title. I just see it as a descriptor of this particular phenomenon, widely used by the RS that are used as references for the article. I know a lot of people dislike it for various reasons, so I won't restate previously made arguments. I would ask you to not suggest that things are "too subtle for our friends here" (which I asssume means fellow editors) to understand, of that we "have lost [our] moral and intellectual bearings"; it is a bit condescending. Thank you. Moogwrench (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice to read something totally without any hard evidence. It start looking like Kåre Fog's attack on Bjørn Lomborg and his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. Or Rajendra Pachauri that say "Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in an interview with Jyllandsposten, a leading Danish newspaper: “What is the difference between Bjorn Lomborg’s view of humanity and Hitler’s? You cannot treat people like cattle. You must respect the diversity of cultures on earth. If you were to accept Bjorn Lomborg’s way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing.”"Bjorn Lomborg Is the World’s Most Optimistic Statistician (reported by the danish newspaper Jyllandsposten in FN-chef: Lomborg tænker som Hitler) Nsaa (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Platts ED

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.

A non public source of news says "Jones has admitted the pressure from the scandal caused him to consider suicide." - can someone find this in attributable media? Ignignot (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It was in the Times - scroll back above for discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly couldn't find the discussion but went through every times online and NYT link on this page - one of the times online articles had [8] in the related articles section. I cannot think of a more serious reaction to the hacking. Shouldn't this go into the article? Ignignot (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Been discussed over at Jones' article. Think the thread was deleted though. There was a sense, iirc, that someone contemplating suicide is the kind of personal thing that we should avoid. Guettarda (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussed in some detail here, note that he agreed (presumably with the reporter's prompting) that being plunged into the public controversy was "a David Kelly moment" and "I thought about it several times, but I think I’ve got past that stage now." Very much a personal issue, not something for this main page. However, have a look at the David Kelly page for cultural context. . . dave souza, talk 12:33, 12 February 2010 (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.

Analysis of the ZIP File - hack

This is an analysis of the ZIP file by Guardian and digital forensics experts: Hacking into the mind of the CRU climate change hacker. I've not read the Guardian piece and suspect that this is what we need to use. They state for example "The Guardian’s analysis shows that a small group of just four of the scientists from among the dozens employed at the CRU were targeted in the sifting of email.". Nsaa (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be quoting this Guardian article of 5 February which is perhaps superseded by more recent articles in the series listed above, specifically this article of 9 February which outlines various hypotheses without any clear conclusion. This article from 4 Feb may also me useful. . . dave souza, talk 12:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume that we're not happy with the reliability of that IT-Networks piece: the site is actually a Wordpress blog. They don't give a source for the further info gleaned from date-stamps of the actual files in the zip, but this is at least the second time I've come across it (can't remember where first) and it is not covered in our timeline.

Digital forensic analysis shows that the zipped archive of emails and documents was not produced on a single date. Instead it was created by copying the files over a number of weeks, with bursts on 30 September 2009, 10 October and 16 November. On the last date a folder of computer analysis code by Osborn was added to the package. The digital forensics on the files indicate that they were created on a computer set at some times four hours behind GMT, and at others five hours behind – plants the hacker on the eastern seaboard of Canada or the US.

Can we add something on this? If this source is not sturdy enough, can anyone point to a better one that covers these details? --Nigelj (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Out of curiosity, does the switch from 4 to 5 hours coincide with the switch from EDT to EST, which in 2009 was on November 1st? If so that would tend to narrow it to the US (Canada doesn't seem to switch between daylight savings in the same way the US does). Ronnotel (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement you quote seems to be straight from the Guardian article of 5 February by Charles Arthur, their technology editor, so that's a reliable source. However, best to read it in the context of the Guardian's 9 February article by Fred Pearce linked above. . . dave souza, talk 21:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate data 'not well organised'

Some interesting news here A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Independent Review web page

The Independent Review chaired by Muir Russell now has a web page [9]. Perhaps one for external links? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Added to external links. Clarification/correction of my wording welcome. Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, Jonathan. I note the title, 'The Independent Climate Change Email Review' - nothing about documents, source code or README files. It'll be good in External links for now; it'll surely have at least its own section one day. --Nigelj (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Stale argument about hacking. See FAQ Q5.

Also interesting: in http://www.cce-review.org/FAQs.php the word 'hack' is used 8 times and 'steal' is also used. --Nigelj (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is additionally interesting that they use the word ‘Climate Gate’ and say that "‘Climate Gate’ is being used by many people to describe a range of issues, including alleged wider consequences of the leaked e-mails for the fundamental science of climate change." This from the UEA's own independent review. Moogwrench (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

They don't use it, they use it in quotes. Seriously, there's a difference This may help people understand what it means to say something "in quotes" when it's not an actual "quotation" (nothing teaches quite so well as mockery). Either that, or track down this episode of '"Friends. Guettarda (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The FAQ mentions a separate appraisal of the science being conducted by UEA and the Royal Society. Has that come up here before? Anyone know anything about it? Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a few details here [10]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that the review's FAQ says unequivocally: "The incident saw an anonymous hacker steal 160MB of data from the UEA server (including more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents) and leak it online." [11] No "alleged", no "whistleblower" fantasies. It also refers to the affair as the "Climate Change Email hacking incident". Presumably UnitAnode will be now complaining to them about their "hackneyed" terminology. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How is that an official confirmation when they didn't even complete their investigation? Indeed, is determining how the e-mails were leaked even part of its mandate? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's OR on your part. The review has said unequivocally that the files were hacked and stolen. We're not in the business of second-guessing how the review knows that. "Alleged" should not be in the lede - it's weasel wording and a word to avoid, and it was clearly added by someone with the intention of casting doubt on the reliably reported facts. Now we have confirmation that those facts are correct. "Alleged" needs to be removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Alleged" ~~or "According to the Review"~~ needs to remain. ~~There's still no one investigating without a clear bias.~~ — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

{EC}The fact that the review has not been completed is not WP:OR, it's a verifiable fact: "The University of East Anglia has asked the Review team to submit its report in Spring 2010."[12] That fact that the nature of the leak e-mails is not part of the mandate can be verified here.[13]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC)To avoid confusing the thread, I want to withdraw, "According to the Review" as inadequate. What's on the site is a summary statement, not a conclusion. However, I also want to withdraw my accusation of bias. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Philip Campbell has just withdrawn from the review panel [14]. An inauspicious start. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hounded out due to a "well-organised and highly-motivated campaign by climate change sceptics," it seems. No surprise that skeptics have already trashed the investigation before it has even got off the ground, as this reliable source seems to suggest. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I was forced to restore the above comment after AQFK deleted it. McIntyre is quoted in the source attacking the makeup of the panel, so there is no BLP vio in my comment. AQFK's heavy-handedness is quite troubling, particularly for someone who "has no dog in this race". -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your WP:BLP violation. The source you cite says nothing about McIntyre "trashing" anyone or anything. I kindly ask that you voluntarily remove your personal attack against me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This comment from one of Channel 4 News' interviewees is quite pertinent: ""The Review team need to be fair to all concerned, but they may ultimately have difficulty persuading people to accept a verdict that does not match the conclusions that they have already reached themselves." We will certainly see that on Wikipedia. In fact, I'd say we're seeing that already with the wilful refusal above to acknowledge the fact that the review has stated unequivocally the files were hacked and stolen. AQFK may claim to be someone with "no dog in this race" but the reality looks very different. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) (e/c)That is completely out of context - he resigned, providing the reason, "There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task, and therefore I have decided to withdraw from the team." McIntyre's quote is only related to a request for review by scientists outside of Climatology. He didn't say a thing about Campbell. (e/c 1 PS) - I am not sure using words with vaguely negative meaning constitutes BLP. Ignignot (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec, to ChrisO) This is WP:SYN, but it's appropriate as commentary. They stated that the files were hacked and stolen, but they also stated that they haven't started investigating, and that only the contents of the documents are relevant to their review, not how they were hacked / liberated / escaped into the wild / ?? Which document are we to believe? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's WP:SYN, therefore it's not worth discussing. The Review has stated the facts as it understands them. It's not our job to dispute its understanding of the facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Bishop Hill" is not after 'scalps', but he wants to get Geoffrey Boulton off the panel too. And he wants to influence who the replacements are allowed to be![15] Maybe we'll need a whole separate article on the review alone if the politicking is going to be this intense before it even starts. --Nigelj (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The anti-science activists clearly want to discredit the panel in advance; as the Mann review shows, it's likely to reach conclusions that are not conducive to the anti-science cause. The Penn State review's exoneration of Mann was widely reported in favourable terms. Evidently the anti-science faction sees it as necessary to pre-emptively discredit the Muir Russell review so that it can dismiss the review's findings when they are released. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't be surprised to see more US politics-/mafia-style digging too: finding out that someone once had an affair with a science undergraduate, or exposing that someone else has a gay son etc. Doesn't it make you proud to be a member of the same species? --Nigelj (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone once referred to this style of politics as "the politics of personal destruction". You don't just object to your opponent's views; you try to ruin your opponent completely and destroy their lives. The Clinton impeachment was a case in point. Similarly the deplorable character assassinations and death threats against Phil Jones. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As to the SYN thing - if they are not a reliable source on what crimes may or may not have occured, then yes we can talk about it. The only real reliable source in that regard is the police and eventually the courts. Ignignot (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Sadly most crimes do not result in prosecutions, and an international crime such as this is even more difficult to prosecute effectively. The UEA is, as has been pointed out on this page many times, an impeccably reliable source as the victim of the crime. It was the UEA's server that was hacked and the UEA's files that were stolen; the UEA is thus in a better position than anyone else to comment on the violation of its rights. It's completely inappropriate for Wikipedians to try to cast doubt on the UEA's statement that it was the victim of a crime. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Not so, I'm afraid. The facts of 'hacking' and 'steal' are in their FAQ - that is not the place such an enquiry would put dubious claims. These are people much more involved than any blogger who tried to spin it as a glorious liberation of the files. --Nigelj (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this discussion is getting a touch off-topic? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, some of it is off-topic, I will admit - but we need to deal with this refusal to acknowledge the review's unequivocal statement about the hack and the consequent insistence by a couple of editors on retaining the POV weasel word "alleged" in the lead of this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is. This is us chewing over what parts of the article will or may be influenced by the new information that's available. I concede that some threading may be useful. I nearly added a subheading at one point, but the edit conflicts were coming so thick, it would not really have been possible. This discussion will spawn various article edits, probably a new article section, and subthreads here about other article edits. It's not at all off topic, just messy to begin with, till the main threads are clear.--Nigelj (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(to Nigelj) The Review board says specifically that they're not investigating how the documents escaped. Hence, although it's stated as "fact" that it's a "hacking" incident, it's (1) a statement about their investigation of the incident, (2) their willfully ignorant opinion, or (3) UEA's statement as to the scope of the Review. In any case, it's not a conclusion that they investigated.

(to ChrisO) The alleged victim of the alleged crime is not the best party to deny that they or their agents might be responsible for the release of the data, and that there is no crime at all.

(to ChrisO and Ignignot). It's WP:SYN, we are allowed to interpret statements made by reliable and unreliable sources to determine whether they contradict each other. An unreliable source can cast doubt on the reliability of a nominally reliable source; not to the point that we can state what the unreliable source says, but to the point that we can ignore a statement made by a nominally reliable source if it's not within their expertise, or is totally absurd, even if the only sources that point out that it's absurd are not what we consider "reliable". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So are you claiming that the UEA is lying? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) (e/c, jesus!)In any case, I think I was being too narrow in my definition of alleged - from the American Heritage Dictionary: Similarly, if the money from a safe is known to have been stolen and not merely mislaid, then we may safely speak of a theft without having to qualify our description with alleged. We should probably take the alleged out.Ignignot (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But we don't know if their server was even hacked. Early reports indicated an insider as do the latest reports. The fact is that we have no idea how these e-mails were released, and this particular investigation isn't even going to look into the matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Early speculation by anti-science bloggers, which was later picked up by some media outlets. But speculation has no bearing on the fact that the UEA, and now the review, have stated unequivocally that the files were stolen from a hacked server. Both parties are in a position to know. Speculating bloggers are not. Speculation and facts are not equal and it is not remotely acceptable to offset statements of fact with speculation from the blogosphere. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the UEA is an involved-party who hasn't finished its investigation and indeed won't even investigate how the e-mails were leaked. At best, it's only reliable for the opinions of itself, just like any other primary source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(to AQFK) Isn't that UEA?

(to ChrisO, Ignignot) As for "are you claiming UEA is lying", no. At the moment, I'm claiming willful ignorance as to how the information got out, rather than lying. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would agree that you claiming willful ignorance would be justified... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not helpful.--SPhilbrick T 00:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AR: I often find myself skeptical of what I believe - and in cases where something akin to a reasonable doubt is called for, such as making suggestions of criminal activity - the line is very faint. But certainly in this case we can agree that they did not want the files and email available to the whole world, and that someone(s) did so against their will. Now is it absolutely certain that someone hacked in and got the data? No. But is it by far the most likely explanation? Yes. I don't think it is likely at all that a vast criminal conspiracy caused it - but that is neither here nor there. Most likely we will never know who did it, and we will never have a RS to say so unequivocally. Our job isn't to write an article on the truth, just give the most reliable and supportable explanation, with other significantly supportable explanations in a less prominent subsection. Ignignot (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisO - "The UEA is, as has been pointed out on this page many times, an impeccably reliable source as the victim of the crime." Even if "impeccably" has, however improbably, been used, it seems likely that here as in some cases of rape, the allegation of crime may be used to deflect attention from the scandal of having been caught in flagrante delicto. Oiler99 (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope that was just a clever troll and not just an extremely poor analogy. Ignignot (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please acquire a sense of proportion. This is not revealed dogma we're talking about here, it's primate behavior. Oiler99 (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be a poor analogy, but the alleged victim of an alleged crime may not be the best entity to describe what happened. (Even if the police find it was hacked, and UEA doesn't officially have anything to do with it, the hacker could have been one of the participants in the activity, and deciding to personally satisfy the FOIA requests. This statement does not violate WP:BLP, although I don't know of a reliable source that states it as a possibility or denies it as a possibility.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If the hacker/s did not have permission to access the network and release the contents, they're still criminal/s no matter what their motives. Not dissimilar from if you murder someone because you know they commited a crime which would have received the death penalty but got away with it, you're still guilty of murder. People don't get a free pass because they took the law into their own hands. In fact it'll often be persued more vigirously to discourage people from doing it Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't know that the "hacker/s" did not have permission to access the network; we do know that, if they did, they were required by law to release the contents, whether or not they had "permission" to do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like nonsense to me. Are you a qualified lawyer, Arthur Rubin? If not, I would suggest that you be more circumspect when handing out free legal advice to potentially thousands of random readers of this talk page. Under English law, I don't see how the text of these emails were 'required' to be released. Please explain with reference to the Acts you have in mind, or maybe withdraw the comment. --Nigelj (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking the reference from the article and the Information Commissioner's Office that some information required to be released under the FOIA was not released; I assume it refers to some of the leaked information, as it's in this article. I'm only familiar with US FOIA requests, but, under that law, anyone (at the facility to which the FOIA was sent) who has (legal) possession of the information, and is aware of the FOIA request, is required to release it.

So, I suppose we don't know that the person releasing the information was legally required to do so. But the argument, although it cannot be presented in the article without a specific reliable source, is sufficient to make the self-serving statements by UEA that the server was hacked inappropriate for Wikipedia without a disclaimer, or if reported by a third-party source, such as the police. "Alleged" hack(ing) is absolutely required unless a third-party source, such as the police, unequivocally states that the server was hacked.

I'm not going to delete my comments above, although they constitute original research, but the discussion is not necessary to support the phrase "alleged hack", and to note that removal of "alleged" is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about US law, where I believe that everything that received government funding to create is automatically in the public domain (or something like that), but under English law, it seems unlikely in the extreme that if a university department has been the subject of an FOI request for temperature data, some of which they couldn't provide because it was bound by commercial non-disclosure agreements created by owners of the temperature data, then every member of public, worldwide, has not just the right but the legal duty to attack their mail servers and release megabytes of correspondence and other files onto the internet. I've heard of conspiracy theories, but that is extreme. The current use of the word 'alleged' for hack now has no justification, and the use of the words steal, stolen and theft should be reinstated elsewhere in the article as per the current reliable sources. No more notice should be taken of such spurious arguments. --Nigelj (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a spurious argument, but it is unnecessary, as no WP:RS has said it was a hack (rather than "reported hack" or "alleged hack") except those quoting UEA, and possibly the Independent Review board, which may also be quoting UEA. As no investigation is complete (and the Independent Review board is not investigating the question), "alleged" or "reported" is still appropriate.

And it's not exactly a conspiracy theory. UEA administration would know nothing about it, if the information was distributed by a single individual with legitimate access. The police might be able to track it down the account used to distribute the information if it wasn't a hack, or an IP address used if it was a hack, but even that might take a few weeks to determine even if the system wasn't used in the interim. However, if the information were downloaded to a portable disk at UEA, and that disk were then carried to the indiviual's home system, and distributed from there, that individual might have committed a crime (not data theft, but possible trade secret and/or privacy violations), but there's still no conspiracy, and the entire UK Internet isn't subject to direct monitoring.

This is speculation, but, in the absence of evidence, I don't consider it significantly less probable that a researcher has a conscience than that a hacker broke in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you seem to be missing the point. I wasn't arguing over whether we knew whether it was hacked. I was pointing out your statement "Even if the police find it was hacked, and UEA doesn't officially have anything to do with it, the hacker could have been one of the participants in the activity, and deciding to personally satisfy the FOIA requests" is somewhat irrelevant since if it was hacked, the motives don't affect the fact a crime was committed (they may affect the likelihood of the crime being prosecuted and of the sentence handed down for the crime although as I've pointed out people rarely take kindly to those that take the law into their own hands). Note that even your claim that they are 'required' to release the contents, is highly dubious (and also completely irrelevant since whatever they may be required to do after they've received the contents, doesn't change the fact they weren't allowed to access the contents in the first place), it implies that the hackers, after having broken the law and hacked into (illegally accessed) a computer network are additionally liable to release contents they shouldn't have in their possession and don't own the copyright for because of some FOIA request they aren't party to. (If they are the ones who made the FOIA request the issue of them releasing the contents doesn't come in to it.) Whether or not it was hacked, or we have sufficient evidence to say it was is not something I want to discuss at this point in time, as I've said I was solely replying to your suggestion that even if it was hacked, the motives of the hackers would somehow come in to it. (I'm somewhat doubtful that even the US legal system will take kindly to a person who hacked into the CIA to release contents that were supposed to be released under the US FOIA) Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of WP:RS: http://www.cce-review.org/FAQs.php the word 'hack' is used 8 times and 'steal' is also used in the Frequently Asked Questions of the official enquiry website. FAQs are not the place you put dubious claims or subtle points that depend on the outcome of the enquiry or police investigations. These are facts of which these informed and influential people have no doubt. --Nigelj (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Keeping up with the investigations/reviews/inquiries

If anyone's having trouble (besides me) keeping up with all the investigations/reviews/inquiries, according to this source, [16] there are five separate inquiries into the climate-gate emails, plus 2 more by Penn State:

Russell’s ‘Independent Climate Change Email Review’, commissioned by UEA
Royal Society review, commissioned by UEA
UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (parliamentary cross-party)
Police investigation into the original email theft
Information Commission
Penn State's review of Michael Mann (Mann exonerated for 3 out of 4 charges, the fourth to be decided by another panel)
Penn State's upcoming investigation/review/inquiry of the one outstanding charge.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There also the US Congressional investigation--SPhilbrick T 00:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You sure about the congressional investigation? There are a few news reports from ~24th of Nov saying Inhofe had launched one, and calls for an investigation on Dec 3, but I don't really see anything since. Can the minority launch a congressional investigation? I thought that was one of the powers of the majority (to which Inhofe does not belong). Guettarda (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No press release from his office. Guettarda (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's the press release] from the minority on the Environment and Public Works committee calling for the investigation. But nothing in either the minority's or the majority's press releases say anything about going forward on the issue. Guettarda (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are correct. The New American applied a little bit of their brand of spin to make more of it than it is, but I don't think he has the direct power to launch such an investigation unless it has the support of the committee chairperson (Senator Boxer). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Saudia Arabia asked for an investigation, which will be undertaken by the IPCC - I don't think that one is on the list.--SPhilbrick T 00:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Note also the continuing investigation by Norfolk police of death threats to UEA scientists: this states that after 27 January there had been two more death threats (by 7 February) which the police were investigating. . . dave souza, talk 11:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting comment on some of the 'independent' members of the Sir Muir Russell lead ‘Independent Climate Change Email Review’. Nsaa (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all interesting. A well-known skeptic of anthropogenic climate change doesn't like the makeup of the panel. Big surprise. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to this shock, Delingpole draws attention to the Global Warming Policy Foundation (Nigel Lawson's crowd of science deniers) the skeptical Bishop Hill blog as his sources. This is the part of the "skeptical echo chamber" I have spoken of before. Of course, the Delingpole piece is just a blog and unusable. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

First: Please read WP:RS: "^ "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.". James Delingpole is a journalist, he writes on telegraph.co.uk (and is under full editorial control by Daily_Telegraph#Website). The only thing we need to to is to attribute what he says to him. This i Policy. Your statement is just your statement.

And secondly: Why are you using all your space to label him as an skeptic instead of going into what he raises as problematic (you're taking the man, not what he says)? This is very problematic, and make the discussion extremely hard when people don't want to talk about what concerns have been raised.

Lets take a quote then "the editor of Nature, Dr Philip Campbell? Dr Campbell is hardly neutral: his magazine has for years been arguing aggressively in favour of the AGW, and which published this editorial in the wake of Climategate: [...]This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill.[...]". Neutral?

"Professor Geoffrey Boulton? Bishop Hill certainly doesn’t think so. He notes that Professor Boulton….

* spent 18 years at the school of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia

* works in an office almost next door to a member of the Hockey Team

* says the argument over climate change is over

* tours the country lecturing on the dangers of climate change

* believes the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2050

* signed up to a statement supporting the consensus in the wake of Climategate, which spoke of scientists adhering to the highest standards of integrity

* could fairly be described as a global warming doommonger

* is quite happy to discuss “denial” in the context of the climate debate.

" Neutral? Nsaa (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that we can use the piece if we want to say "Delingpole said...," but not for anything else. It is an opinion piece. He is not a legitimate journalist in the sense that he is a climate skeptic writing opinion pieces for the Telegraph to further his skeptical agenda, rather than reporting the news. There is nothing in the piece but skeptical-driven attacks against men of good standing using skeptical blogs as his sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Delingpole's blog is under full editorial control of the Telegraph? I see nothing at Daily_Telegraph#Website that suggests anything of the sort. If his blog is under their control, then all their content is suspect, given his reprint of Solomon's error-ridden piece. Not to mention, I'd be rather disappointed if Telegraph editors approved his post calling William "ugly". Guettarda (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, what's wrong with "is quite happy to discuss “denial” in the context of the climate debate"? If social scientists like Aaron McCright have published about it in the peer reviewed literature, it's more than legitimate for someone to talk about it. Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

An analysis of various potential titles by news hits

Please continue this discussion on the RFC at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/RfC on article name change, where a full copy of the text of this section is available

"Climategate"
1,711 hits in the past month.
"Climategate scandal"
199 hits in the past month.
"Climategate controversy"
29 hits in the past month.
"Climatic Research Unit hacking incident"
1 hit in the past month, and that's from a source mocking the silliness of the title.

I could find no other results for potential titles, but I'll keep looking. Unit Anode 13:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Many of the Climategate articles also describe it as scandal or controversy. Ex. Climategate+near+Controversy gives 163 last month. What is good with our current title is that it gives a hit. The old one gives ZERO (all time) "Climatic+Research+Unit+e-mail+hacking+incident" Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Nsaa (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant, pointless bit of GoogleDiving to waste everyone's time. There is no notability requirement for titles, and there are no policies that prohibit us from inventing an entirely unique title. As long as it is accurate, unambiguous and neutral we can pretty much have anything we like. Even if you could find 100 million GoogleNews hits for "Climategate" (or variations thereof) it would still fail the neutrality requirement. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. It's reliably-sourced, and much clearer than the hackneyed junk that currently constitutes the titling. Unit Anode 14:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's non-neutral. Saying it isn't won't ever change that fact. Stop wasting everyone's time. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not "non-neutral" to call it what the reliable sources call it. Unit Anode 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Most reliable sources use the term in quotes, indicating it is not their choice of word. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Of the top 10 Gnews main results, 6 use it without quotes, and 4 use the quotes. Unit Anode 15:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Of which most are blogs/op-eds/opinion pieces. Legitimate reports from legitimate reporters almost all use quotes. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are simply a way of acknowledging that they didn't coin the phrase, not a statement on what they think of it as a neutral term. Unit Anode 15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone back and forth on the "Climategate" name change issue. As a skeptic I would like to state for the record that it's just too soon to re-name this article "Climategate" even though many (every single) reliable source calls it that. For two very simple reasons: 1. It's a violation of WP guidelines (a word to avoid); and 2. We don't know yet whether or not this is a significant event. Someone once opined that everything since the Fall of Rome is current events. I don't take quite such a strict view, but there's no avoiding the fact that this is a developing story. Maybe the term "hack" should go. I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to talk about it, especially since it rubs some folks raw (for one reason and another). You know what really would help, though? The whole "assume good faith" thing. The skeptics (and we know who we are) need to stop acting like this was something other than a minor issue of semantics and WP policy. The True Believers (and you know who you are) need to ease up on the stridency and condescension. (tongue-in-cheek) How's about htis for a compromise - if Al Gore calls it "Climategate", can we put it parenthetically in the title? Nightmote (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether "Climategate" should be the title, surely the present title is unbalanced? "Hacking incident" implies the controversy was about the supposed hackers; while in fact the main focus of this story has been the controversy about the alleged behaviour of the scientists (revealed, incidentally, by the alleged hacking).--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

An Analysis of Climategate vs "Climategate"

OK, I decided to collect some data regarding the issue of whether reliable sources use the term Climategate in quotes or not. Since there hundreds of articles on this topic, I decided to use a sampling size of 20 reliable sources as determined by Google's search engine. Here is what I found:

Climategate in quotes: 11 [17][18][19][20][21] [22][23] [24][25] [26][27]

Climategate not in quotes: 2 [28][29]

Climategate both with and without quotes: 7 [30][31][32][33][34][35][36]

I spent about 5 minutes doing this. If there are any errors, please let me know and I'll correct them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I rejected any article from Fox News as they have a tendency to politicize come topics related to science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have also recommended rejecting the Telegraph too. It would be nice also to include some reliable sources which don't use the sensationalist term: [37] and [38] for example. Maybe do a search for "global warming" or "climate change" and then see what the reliable sources call the incident. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[36] is certainly an apologia for the UEA, while [37] is behind a paywall. How do these show anything other than that Nature.com certainly has their own spin on what happened? Unit Anode 17:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you really think that Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals on the planet is not a reliable source regarding climate change-related issues, then I really, really encourage you to go to WP:RSN and see how far you get with that argument. I think that deserves a *rolleyes*. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't a reliable source, only that they clearly have their own spin on the politics of what's going on in the scientific community with regards to the CRU/UEA. Unit Anode 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Concure with SA. Nature is peer-reviewed, academic journal. Such sources are highly prized by Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV does not mean that all viewpoints are presented fairly and with equal weight. It present viewpoints as they're presented by WP:RS. Since the scientific consensus is that AGW is the correct viewpoint, we're supposed to repeat that bias here. Maybe AGW really is the greatest scientific fraud since Piltdown man? Who cares? That's not our problem as Wikipedia editors. You're just going to have to accept that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When a pristine reliable source on science takes an unequivocal position on the politics behind that science, we give it no more weight than any other RS on the same political issue. Unit Anode 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you basing this on anything but your own point-of-view? Has any reliable source ever criticized Nature for being political? And since when are there "politics behind science"? Are you referring to the politicization of science, because if that's so then you've got your cause-and-effect mixed up. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the series of articles by The Guardian that I linked below, and then tell me that there aren't any politics going on behind the "scientific scene." UnitAnode 19:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- So, I guess the answer is, "no". No, you aren't basing this deprecation of Nature on anything but your own POV. No, you don't have any reliable source criticizing Nature for being political. And you similarly failed in recognizing your premise/predicate problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  - Okay cut the crap. I haven't even implied that Nature is "deprecated." They're a great source for actual science, and the fact that they have a POV on the politics behind the science doesn't change that. And I notice how you failed to reply regarding the politics that go on behind the scientific scene. UnitAnode 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    - Great. Since you admit that Nature is a great source for actual science and global warming is actual science then they are a great source. Whether global warming is a political issue or not is irrelevant to the fact that the source I cited was discussing the presentation, conduct, and application of science (not politics which isn't the subject of either article). Since we need not intuit any political bias when none is explicitly mentioned in the articles in question and since you were unable to provide any source which indicated as much, we rightly rely on Nature for notable commentary on this issue. I'm glad we came to an agreement. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There would indeed appear to be sourcing that calls Nature's editorial independence into doubt. Key quote from Dr. Campbel: "There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task, and therefore I have decided to withdraw from the team." Nature's editor forced to step down from climate review panel?? They are clearly an involved party here and should be treated as such. Ronnotel (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

False. The editor-in-chief is not the same thing as the publication itself. Nor is there any evidence from that Channel 4 piece that Philip Campbell is somehow lacking "independence". Only spin from naysayers. Removing the appearance of something that would call "into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task" is not the same thing as actually having a problem in that regard. Let me be clear: the panel is going to come to the conclusion that there is no smoking gun in these documents that makes anthropogenic global warming questionable. Similar to the DOE panels convened about cold fusion, for example. This is essentially a nice big fat red herring. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Above, you challenged the notion that Nature had been criticized for being political and asked for sourcing to support that statement. I simply submit the requested evidence in which Dr. Campbell admits he has made prejudicial statements and, quite rightly, disqualified himself from serving on an independent review panel. Is there any evidence that Nature is regarded as neutral in this dispute? Ronnotel (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a "prejudicial statement" at all. He was simply stating facts that should be obvious to more or less everybody. It is hard for anyone to be impartial when the skeptical position is so fringey. In that sort of climate (no pun intended), a reasonable statement can seem prejudicial. I doubt very much the skeptics would be complaining about the makeup of the panel if it included someone like Ross McKitrick, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I should be clear, marginalized and deprecated sources have questioned the political neutrality of Nature from time-to-time. But their protestations are not things worth considering. Think of people like Young-Earth-Creationists, Big-Bang-Deniers, Einstein-was-wrongers, Cold-Fusion-pathological-scientists, etc. Global-warming-denialists is just another branch on the tree of pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have regularly questioned the political neutrality of Nature Magazine: do feel free to call me a pseudo-scientific denialist, or whatever is the insult of choice these days, but you might wish to click through to my publication record before doing so. Now, can we please calm down and get back to the issues? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This insult-fest that ScienceApologist is engaging in needs to be ignored, I think. Scott aka UnitAnode 01:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia-type IPCC

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.

Please use this page to discuss the article.

I'm still reading this article from the CSM, but I ran across an interesting phrase worth sharing:
John Christy, a climate researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, suggests setting up a Wikipedia-type IPCC --SPhilbrick T 17:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

right....sure....like we don't have enough self-important unemployed computer programmer writing enough non-fact in wiki already.142.177.62.115 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2010 (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.

RfC on article name change

Should this article be renamed? If so, what should it be? Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/RfC on article name change

I've moved that discussion to a separate page because, at nearly 50kb, it was dwarfing the rest of the page, and is heading in the opposite direction to consensus. --TS 01:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Heading in the opposite directing to consensus"? What do you mean? Consensus to change the title of the article has clearly emerged. I count 20 in favor of changing the title and only 13 opposed. Furthermore, the last 8 votes are all in favor. Are you seriously trying to hide the results by moving them? 24.11.186.64 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hacked document made public, and other news

Document revealed, and comment on disagreements. . dave souza, talk 00:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That commentary article is well-written and informative. I liked how he explained the nature of "research science." Is that photomontage a public image? If so, it could be added to this article. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Stainforth's column is excellent, an accurate portrayal of the status of the science and what the real uncertainties are (as opposed to what journalists, politicians, and scientists in unrelated fields think the uncertainties are). It's nice to hear from someone who is an ordinary scientist in the trenches. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Blog, Small Dead Animals, contains articles and comments from a Canadian perspective under the heading "Hide the Decline" http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012714.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by On2u2 (talk • contribs)

Blogger, not a reliable or notable source. Guettarda (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Rajendra K. Pachauri quote... a must read!!

   Q: Has all that has happened this winter dented the credibility of IPCC?
   R.K.P.: I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone
           be worried about climate change?

Exactly! 142.177.60.141 (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced, and seems to have lost something in translation. . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

BBC Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

The recent BBC Q&A withe Phil Jones [39] is a useful source: much of it is off-topic for this article but some sections are quite relevant, and it seems one of the better Reliable Sources we have got for his opinion of the incident. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I read this article in The Mail first, which contained this inexplicable sentence: He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.. Then I read the BBC interview, where Jones discusses the same periods, with different answers, so now I'm convinced the Mail reporter just mangled the answers. The BBC interview is quite interesting.--SPhilbrick T 15:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first time -- or the second, or the third -- that the Mail has screwed things up badly. It simply isn't a reliable source on anything related to this topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I thought his answers were probably nonsense, but it is still better to work from the BBC's fairly original version answers than from a mangled version of them. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

@jonathanJones - I think his answers [[40]] were uncommonly straightforward, and to some extent quite accurate, but neither of our opinions matters a whit as to whether this is a WP:RS for the opinions of Phil Jones. Unclear if it needs to be here only, or also in Global Warming. Speculation on his motives, if that's what you were doing, is unnecessary. Oiler99 (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I found his answers generally interesting, humble and carefully constructed. Not enough to stop misleading spin by tabloids. . . dave souza, talk 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Mail is just as reliable as any other newspaper trying to hype headlines to sell papers. So what now, can't reference newspapers now? pullleeeze142.68.220.68 (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See Reliable sources policy. That tabloid does not have a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. . . dave souza, talk 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the archives on WP:RSN there have been discussions of the Mail. Can be reliable for some topics. Their science coverage has received a great deal of criticism. "Hype headlines" doesn't come into it - headlines are written by subeditors and should not be use as sources. Of course newspapers want to sell copies, like writers want to sell books. If we take any notice of that then we will have no sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any record of The Mail making up quotes in an interview? If not, it would seem ok as a source for the Jones quotes. JPatterson (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of quote mining? As it happens, the quotes it uses are from the BBC interview, transcript link at the top of this section. A much better source. . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate disambiguation page needed?

People who come to Wikipedia searching "Climategate" are not exclusively looking for information on the e-mail scandal. Some are interested in one or more of the cascade of related scandals, revelations and events, such as the Himalaya glaciers, the WWF research, the dropping of northern weather stations, the Chinese data, the hockey stick graph, the Jones confession, the defections of Cristy and Watson, etc etc. It's getting hard to keep track of them all! Obviously the current title doesn't fit for all that. A disambiguation page might help. Any votes for or against? Plain jack (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Another panel member facing calls to resign

More news here A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation that Nigel Lawson set up a few days after the emails were made public, thinks mainstream scientist is biased. News at 10. . . dave souza, talk 00:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Souza, sarcasm is not helpful. I looked at the Scotsman article. Is there a separate Wikipedia article on the investigation? If not, then a sentence saying that one of the investigators resigned after being accused of COI may be appropriate. If more sources pick up on the calls for this other guy to resign, then a sentence saying something like, "Allegations of COI have been raised against other members of the investigative team by critics." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm? It's obvious that a think tank set up on 23 November 2009 by a climate sceptic politician "concerned with the 'extremely damaging and harmful policies' put forward to deal with global warming" is likely to complain about a reputable mainstream scientist taking part in the enquiry. Thanks for the spelling correction, KimDabelsteinPetersen, I copied and pasted from the linked Scotsman article and it appears that they got that wrong. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say this, I'm starting to think that Russell’s ‘Independent Climate Change Email Review’ is deserving of its own article. If we don't already have enough content, we will by the time it releases its report. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot imagine how there could possibly be enough material for a separate article, even after the report has been released. I can see it eventually needing a paragraph in this article, and perhaps even its own section, but certainly not an article all to itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have no plans to create one as this is the only article in this topic space I edit, but sure I think that there's enough for an entire article. Off the top of my head, here's a brief outline:

Summary - Summarize article
Background - Summarize Climategate controversy
Mandate - Explain what specific allegations they're investigating.
Makeup - List of panel members with brief explanations of each of their backgrounds
History - Formation, resignation of Campbell, Boulton facing calls to resign
Conclusions - To be filled out later
Reception - Reactions to the conclusions, to be filled out later A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be huge redundancy. I think you will find that the entire investigation and its conclusions will be easy to summarize in a single paragraph. I see no need to give coverage to the Campbell resignation (or Boulton). Giving this its own article would be making an enormous mountain out of a tiny molehill. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It couldn't be redundant as this article is about the "hacking incident". Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"That would be huge redundancy" It would only be a huge redundancy if the entire contents of the sub-article was included in the main article. Instead, the sub-article should include the important details while the main article only contains a summary.

"I see no need to give coverage to the Campbell resignation (or Boulton)" I disagree. Jimbo has said that Wikipedia should be the sum of all human knowledge.[41] A bit grandiose if you ask me, but there's no reason why a reader who's interested in finding out more about the the Russell inquiry shouldn't be allowed to. We're not a paper encyclopedia. We're not limited by the number of pages that can be printed. As long as the Russell inquiry is notable (which clearly it is) and we cite reliable sources (which obviously we can), I don't see a problem at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussing a spinout article is fine per WP:Talk page guidelines, but please confine such a discussion to the merits of the proposed article. It may be better to work on a userspace draft. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

An entire article on the matter would probably have serious WP:WEIGHT issues. If it ends up getting filled out with all sorts of nonsense about "calls for resignations" from the climate skeptics, it will also become a POV fork. Wait until the report actually comes out, and then we'll see. I suspect the report will call for a few changes to adopt best practices, and it may well indicate Jones did not use the best of judgment, but that'll probably be about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT applies to neutrality, not notability. I doubt this sub-article would be any better or worse than any other article in this topic space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I know what WP:WEIGHT applies to. I have over 15,000 edits so I've become pretty familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, thank you very much. Creating an article that inflates the importance of the climate skeptic attacks on panel members will violate WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK. The inquiry would have to become a really big deal with far-reaching consequences before it would warrant its own article. In the meantime, consider WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Creating an article that inflates the importance of the climate skeptic attacks on panel members will violate WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK" Where in the world did I ever suggest anything even remotely like what you just described? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

*History - Formation, resignation of Campbell, Boulton facing calls to resign - this sort of "filler" material is the problem. In the context of the article, they are trivial issues; however, if the inquiry gets its own article there will doubtless be a push to highlight this sort of material by the climate change skeptics who seem to think this sort of thing is important. As I said before, we need to wait until the report is released before we can make a judgment on whether or not this deserves its own article, but I suspect not. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, so you ignored most of the different sections (Summary, Background, Mandate, Makeup, Conclusions, Reception) and then decided it was the one section you paid attention to that was the problem? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ignore anything. Please assume good faith. Let me use plainer language in case you are having difficulty understanding my point. The only reason that I can see for splitting the inquiry off into a separate article would be to inflate the controversial aspects (such as the resignation) that I don't think are significant. That would be a POV fork. As I stated previously, I think the entire investigation will be easy to summarize in a single paragraph, or perhaps a section. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"I didn't ignore anything." Actually, you did. You ignored 6 out of 7 sections. And then made up some fantasy about the one section you didn't ignore.

"Let me use plainer language in case you are having difficulty understanding my point." There's no need to be condescending. I understand English just fine, thank you.

"The only reason that I can see" That indeed might be the only reason you can see, but I've suggested nothing of the kind. If you can't address what I'm saying then this discussion is not accomplishing anything. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"made up some fantasy" - That's an assumption of bad faith right there. If you look down, I think you'll find you no longer have a leg to stand on. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I did toy with the idea of separate coverage for the enquiries, but I quickly rejected the idea when we consider that there are at least seven enquiries in motion (see #Keeping up with the investigations/reviews/inquiries above. Anyway, as always, what we do is start the coverage here in an article section, then, if and when this article becomes too big, we look at which section(s) to spin off into sub-articles, leaving a summary and a {main} link here. No need to worry about it until then. --Nigelj (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the way news is developing, it seems worthwhile moving the various enquiries from the "responses" section into a new "reviews and enquiries" section. As you say, if that section becomes too large, it can be split off in summary style. .. dave souza, talk 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Guettarda (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems premature to start an article about the COE. It's currently attracting news coverage, and if the denialists manage to gut it, then it might be worth a sentence somewhere in the politicisation of climate change, but beyond that its only notability lies with its findings and their consequences. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use offensive terms like denialists; it really doesn't help. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest as an alternative? I find the nonsensical frame of "skeptic" far more offensive, all the more since it's regularly turned around into an attack. Guettarda (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And the best academic analysis of the issue I've found so far (Aaron McCright's work) using the term, so I think it's appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I simply suggest that we be guided by Wikipedia:Civility. I hope this is not controversial. Personally I would suggest that addressing people by the term they use to describe themselves (which would, in this case, be "skeptics") is normally a good position to start from. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL doesn't require us refer to Fox News as "fair and balanced". Personally I prefer accuracy over framing. There are really only two defensible terms, "denialist" and "contrarian" (per sources supplied in the archives, somewhere). And I find "contrarian" to be both clumsy and too infrequently used. Guettarda (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I prefer "anti-science activists". They are not "sceptics" any more than Marxists are sceptics of capitalism or creationists are sceptics of evolution. They are ideologically opposed to the science because it casts doubt on their ideological assumptions. They hold so strongly to their ideology that they hold an a priori belief that any contrary scientific conclusions are either invalid or the work of their political opponents. This belief is about as anti-science as you can get; it's no different to the Communists' embrace of Lysenkoism because they thought Darwinian evolution was ideological incompatible with Marxism. They're also not content just to stand on the sidelines - they actively seek to attack and undermine the scientific process itself. This incident shows that in practice - the long-term harassment of the scientists, the attack on a major scientific institution, the well-oiled propaganda machine, the death threats. So "anti-science activists", because they're actively hostile to science itself when it challenges their ideology. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That is ridiculous! Two scientist can look at the same data and draw different conclusions depending on the context. It is only in case of the really hard sciences any "truth" applies. Climate science is a cross-disciplinary science and a relatively soft science and as such is open to interpretation. Personally I do not find the available data convincing. Does this make me a "anti-science" scientist. Of course not. I am simply skeptical of your conclusions based on the available data.85.77.244.145 (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As a working scientist I do find the parodies of science being tossed around above faintly hilarious. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Now adding to "see also" is subject to summary removal?

We have pretty liberal "see also" guidelines here. It should be patently obvious that there is some overlap between the article on the Criticism of the IPCC AR4, and this article. Yet, we have Haeb, whose only edits to this article in his last 500 are simple reversions, removing it, claiming my detailed edit summary just wasn't quite enough. Yet, Scjessey reverts the initial addition with nothing more than a "not related" edit summary, and that's acceptable? Good grief, people! It's also more than a bit, well, "interesting" that an editor who hadn't touched this article, or participated in any discussions surrounding it, in quite some time randomly shows up at a 1RR article once the wikilink was readded. Scott aka UnitAnode 23:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You should consider refactoring your bad faith assertion above. You have to have a proper reason for adding something to a "see also", and that does not include "making sure as many people see it as possible." Also, you aren't supposed to be reverting things that have just been reverted, according to recent comments by 2/0. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You reverted with an edit summary of "not related", which is categorically untrue. I restored the "see also" wikilink with a detailed edit summary. Then, mysteriously, Haeb drops by and reverts again to remove it, claiming my edit summary was somehow inadequate, while not commenting on your two word edit summary at all. Have I missed anything? Scott aka UnitAnode 23:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of the IPCC AR4 contains a huge amount of scientific info that's related to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Both are about scientific errors by the IPCC that have received widespread coverage in the media. The two are very much related to each other. In fact, I think the two articles should be merged, because all the scientific errors covered in both articles are all closely related to each other. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The CRU and the IPCC are two completely distinct organizations. One is part of the University of East Anglia and the other is an intergovernmental panel set up by the UN. --TS 04:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are, but they're closely related in the Climategate controversy, see for example An Overview of IPCC/Climategate Criticism. Nsaa (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This science article from the science website sciencemag.org shows that there is a very strong scientific connection. While I understand why the two articles shouldn't be merged, I do think the inclusion of the "see also" is well justified. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See my answer below. Please stick one comment in on place to safe some bits ("Will nobody think of the bits? Please!") and avoid splintering the discussion. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

←The only way in which these two articles are related is that they are "causes" championed by deniers of anthropogenic climate change. The only legitimate unifying article is Global warming controversy, although really its about Climate change denial. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As a person who loves science, and who got A's in physics and chemistry, I know that if you have two sealed glass containers of air sitting in sunlight, and the only difference is that one has a higher level of carbon dioxide, then the one with the higher level of carbon dioxide will have a higher temperature. This is a scientific fact. Therefore, I do not see this as being about Climate change denial. Instead, I see it as being about Climate change exaggeration. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to support that? My understanding is that thermal conduction through the container wall will determine the temperature since glass is opaque in the IR frequencies. Q Science (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw it on a special episode of Mythbusters where they had some science students as guests. But maybe it wasn't glass. The point was that a higher level of carbon dioxide caused the temperature to be higher. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that episode on youtube. It was not a valid demonstration of anything. Q Science (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)