Jump to content

Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

summary of possible bias and quality problems in 'contents of documents' section

Here is a list of all problems as I see it with the contents of documents section.

  1. para 1, line 2: "According to an analysis in The Guardian, ..." -- which analysis? there is no footnote or reference given. I would like to follow this up as I find the theory that these four scientists were targeted as strange. It also seems to contradict what is said later on that hackers filtered on key words. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Fixed by Dave Souza.[1] From the source: "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." [2] Hans Adler 10:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  2. para 2, line 1: "Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research". I would drop 'mundane' as that is a matter of opinion. Yes, it's in the source, but that doesn't stop it being a matter of opinion. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    It is not a matter of opinion. The source mentions "details on data analysis and logistics over attending conferences" as examples. There is no way that the booking of hotels or flight tickets for conferences or similar matters can be regarded as anything but mundane in the context of the greater global warming debate. They shed absolutely no light on it. Hans Adler 10:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    And what if I say I found the emails riveting? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    You're easily riveted, but you're not a reliable source. . dave souza, talk 16:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    The problem here seems to be that many of the editors here seem unable to distinguish reliably sourced facts from reliably sourced opinions. Having an opinion presented in a reliable source does not somehow transform that opinion into a fact. I think the climategate emails are riveting. Few of them are completely mundane at all. If you start from the start, okay 1, 2 & 3 are fairly mundane, but 4 is quite interesting (0837094033.txt) for Phil Jones' view that Piers Corbyn is an "utter prat", and Alan Rabock's query, what exactly is a "prat"? Number 6 is from John Daly discussing the 11-year solar cycle (0839635440.txt). And 7 (0839858862.txt) expresses Tom Wigley's opinion that paleo data is quite hopeless and wishes the paleo community would stop exaggerating its usefulness. I don't find them boring at all. So it is a matter of opinion that they are "mostly" "mundane". Do you admit there is a difference between reliably sourced fact and opinion? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    It's a well sourced mainstream view, and as such merits mention. The controversy was not focussed on scientists discussing conference arrangements, it focussed on a very small number of emails. . . dave souza, talk 08:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  3. para 3, line 1: "Climate change sceptics gained wide publicity in blogs and news media,[35] making allegations that the hacked emails showed evidence that climate scientists manipulated data.[3]" Again, the structuring of the sentence is biased by moving the actual subject, in this case it should be climate scientists, to the end of the sentence, and using 'climate change skeptics' as the subject instead. This also makes it hard for the reader to get the point; one has to read all the way to the end to find out what the sentence is really about. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    You are just trying to rewrite this according to your POV. I appears that according to you the point is that climate scientists (add whatever qualifier is needed) manipulated data. But as these manipulations never happened and this article is about the controversy, the real point is that climate sceptics manufactured a controversy. The sentence gets this point across quite well. Hans Adler 10:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC),
    Well thank you, Hans, for at least having the decency to spell out what you presume to be my agenda. You are completely wrong, though. To be clear, I don't believe that the climategate emails reveal any significant manipulation of data at all. Thank you also for spelling out your own bias, i.e. that climate skeptics simply manufactured a controversy. And you're right. The sentence does communicate this bias. That is the problem, and until people recognise that it is a bias, a one-sided view of the controversy, this article is never going to be taken seriously by anyone -- other than climate change activists and Greens. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Tsk, Alex, your pov is showing. The controversy was about various allegations made by self-proclaimed skeptics, thus manufacturing a controversy, the behaviour of scientists was scrutinised and nearly all of the allegations were found to be groundless. That was the sequence. The cited sources show just that, a manufactured controversy based on widespread political misrepresentation of a few soundbites uncritically repeated by journalists.[35] The situation reported a day after the emails were "stolen by hackers and leaked online' was that the story had been broken by the Air Vent blog, "Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data", and the scientists concerned declined to comment..[3] The sequence of these points might usefully be reversed, with a bit more detail of the timing being shown, and that could form a second paragraph before going on to the detail of the emails. . dave souza, talk 16:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    "This also makes it hard for the reader to get the point; one has to read all the way to the end to find out what the sentence is really about." Standard English grammar rules follow the sentence form subject-verb-object. Unless you want the sentence to read like Yoda wrote it, the "scientific data" phrase will tend to come at the end of a sentence of which it is the object. And frankly, if the lay reader doesn't have the patience or willpower to read an entire sentence all the way to the end, they're unlikely to follow anything in any Wikipedia article.86.14.188.102 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Dave, so you are saying we have a completely black and white situation here, i.e. a classic Good vs Evil story -- climate scientists versus the climate change skeptics -- and you're saying that's not a point of view, or a bias, but a neutral presentation of the facts. And you want me to take this seriously? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    If I say, e.g., "Alex Harvey is a 19-legged alien from Alpha Centauri who eats babies filled with puppies", then this may or may not be true. If a number of reports comes to the conclusion that this was not, after all, true at all, except that Alex Harvey is in fact not a vegetarian, but the latter point is irrelevant to the Wikipedia discussion in which I made the claim — then, I would think, it's a completely black and white situation, and anyone who still believes that there can be no smoke without fire is just a conspiracy theorist. Do you agree? If not, I must tell you that there is no consensus that anyone other than humans is allowed to participate in building Wikipedia. Hans Adler 18:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you Hans. You are saying you regard this as a simple Good vs Evil story, of Evil skeptics vs Good scientists, the former the cause of All Evil, and the latter utterly blameless and pure, and you regard this not as your opinion, but as certain and factual. Not consistent with reality -- not even RealClimate or the inquiries have taken an extreme position like this. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    Alex, you're the one who's been talking about a simple Good vs Evil story, I think you'll find that Hans was parodying your remarks. Please note I said "nearly all of the allegations were found to be groundless", that's accurate and is not black and white. More constructively, we can look at some stage at reviewing the sequence of paragraphs in this section. . . dave souza, talk 08:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  4. para 3, line 2: "A few other commentators such as Roger A. Pielke[36] said that the evidence supported claims that dissenting scientific papers had been suppressed.[37]" I don't understand why we're pinning this on Pielke. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Not clear what the problem is. Do you want to drop Pielke as an example of "a few other commentators", or do you want to replace him? Hans Adler 10:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    I just don't understand why Pielke is being singled out in this context. Generally, if there must be examples of people having this or that view, they should be weighted according to sources. I don't recall Pielke being particularly vocal about the corruption of peer review. And I bet that others had a whole lot more to say than Pielke did. I'll have a look at what I can find perhaps a bit later. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Read the source. "For a few, however, the stolen files were confirmation that the climate establishment was trying to keep them out of the debate. These include the familiar kind of climate skeptics, those who think that the climate isn't changing or that it isn't a crisis. But they also include a handful of researchers who think climate change is happening, but -- for various reasons -- are skeptical that mainstream science fully understands the phenomenon.".... the sole example the Wapo cites is Pielke senior, if others of that handful had a lot to say about it they failed to tell the Wapo when its reporters were writing that story. . . dave souza, talk 16:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  5. para 3, line 3: "The Wall Street Journal reported the emails revealed apparent efforts to ensure the IPCC included their own views and excluded others, and that the scientists withheld scientific data.[38]" Same issue with structuring. Throughout, it seems like we're trying to stop the casual reader from actually reading this stuff by putting the important points at the ends of the sentences. Also, what's the significance of the Wall Street Journal here? All of this should be fixed by opening with something like, "It was alleged that the emails showed scientists manipulating data, interfering with the peer review process, and withholding data." Alex Harvey (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Sounds good to me. Hans Adler 10:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    "It was alleged[who?]" – the WSJ is significant for the readers as it's a business newspaper, not a scientific journal or news magazine, and the WSJ has a track record of promoting attacks on mainstream climate science. Perhaps we shouldn't be giving so much prominence to a source promoting fringe scientific views. Alternatively, we could simply describe them as critics or skeptics. . . dave souza, talk 17:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  6. para 4, generally: this whole paragraph is a rambling mess at present and I can't work out what it's about. Buried way at the end is an admission that scientists discussed deleting data and exaggerated certainty. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    I agree about the paragraph's structure.
    The "buried" sentence at the end is not an "admission" (by whom?) but a quotation from an opinion piece. Also, while "exaggerated certainty" is an adequate description of the opinion, "deleted data" has nothing to do with the quoted text, and nothing related occurs in the source. [3] Hans Adler 11:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    The paragraph structure is the main issue. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  7. para 4, line 1: "An editorial in Nature stated that "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories." This is completely inappropriate and trivialises the whole section. This line has obviously been cherry picked so that so as to call skeptics 'denialists' and 'conspiracy theorists'. It otherwise adds nothing to the section, other than to hide what the remainder of the paragraph is really about. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Ignoring the general problems of this paragraph, this sentence is accurate and appropriate. Using a Nature editorial straight on the topic is not cherry-picking, and neither was it cherry-picked from within the source: It's the first sentence of the second of three sections, and it's even summarised as part of the source's subtitle ("have revealed no scientific conspiracy").
    Similar language referring to the conspiracy theory also pervades this Guardian report [4] on the government committee's findings and researchers' reactions. Hans Adler 11:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    I think the Nature editorial was in poor taste, as did plenty of others. But forget about that. What exactly are we trying to say here? Pretend you're not a partisan to this debate, but instead just a lay reader who has never heard of denialists or the fossil fuel conspiracy or the denialists' world government carbon tax conspiracy or any other emotionally laden ideas that are flung around in the climate change mud fight. Such a reader now needs to know what a 'denialist' is, and whatever the conspiracy' is that's referred to. Are we going to explain this in the article? Of course not, it's not relevant here. This is just bad writing; that's the main problem. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Nature is at the heart of the scientific mainstream, and can be relied on to show majority scientific views on the issues. We should show these views as well as showing the views of a business newspaper. . . dave souza, talk 17:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  8. para 4, line 1: "The emails showed harassment of researchers, often using Freedom of Information Act requests" This is unsourced, and a matter of opinion. It is clearly apologetics on behalf of the scientists who refused to comply with FOIA requests. The inquiries agreed that the scientists needed training and support on how to deal with FOIA requests in the future. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Surely it's enough to have the supporting footnote right at the end of the subsequent sentence? Straight from the source: "If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts." The source goes on to explain: "Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions." [5] Explaining why the researchers could not simply follow all those FOIA requests is hardly "apologetics". This is a complicated bureaucratic/legal matter, and it's not traditionally part of their job. The climate sceptics made it so. They succeeded, and now the scientists need training to deal with the new reality. Hans Adler 10:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Ditto with my comments above. This article should not be presenting a bias. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    The article should properly reflect the sources and give due weight to majority scientific views of the topic. Your problem, Alex, is that you seem to want the article to present your own bias. . . dave souza, talk 17:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  9. para 5, generally: again the trick of moving the point to the end of a long rambling paragraph is used. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    As far as I can tell, the paragraph tells the story coherently and accurately: The accusation was made, was taken up by politicians, a tiny grain of truth was found in it, but basically it was refuted. Hans Adler 10:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Presumably, Alex, your use of "trick" here mirrors the use of "trick" in the emails - i.e. in reference to a perfectly common standard technique (in this case, of constructing an English sentence), with no underhand intentions implied.almightybob (pray) 20:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  10. para 5, line 2: "well-discussed tree ring divergence problem". Obviously, we are trying to over compensate here for the skeptic accusation that the divergence problem was hidden. To say instead that it was "well discussed" is a matter of opinion. And obviously, many think it was not well discussed at all. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Well discussed would only be a matter of opinion if it was close to a borderline case. Are you disputing that the problem was well discussed among the relevant scientific community, or do you assert that scientific debate does not count as long as it is not also well discussed among the general public? Hans Adler 11:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    My opinion is that it could have been discussed more than it actually was. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Your opinion is irrelevant, if you look up sources we can think about what you want to convey, but the divergence problem was fully published and discussed in the scientific community. There's always a question of how much technical information is appropriate in summary for laypeople, perhaps it's a shame that news media didn't do more to interest the general public in the detailed technicalities of the science. . . dave souza, talk 17:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  11. para 5, line 6 (note by line 6 we have got to the point finally): "The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that the so-called 'trick' was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion". Ok, it wasn't a legitimate fashion and even the inquiries agreed that Jones used poor judgement here. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    From page 5 of the government report: "The so-called 'trick'[1] was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field." [6]
    Jones' judgement is only relevant to the global warming debate insofar as it would have affected the research outcomes, which it did not. The criticism was purely for withholding data needed for reproducing the results. The committee chair even said that Jones had been "scapegoated", so it would be inappropriate for us to dwell on inconsequential personal failings of this living person.
    I'm pretty sure you're cherry picking but I'll have to dig out the actual report later as I've run out of time. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    update: I've had a look at your source, and it's not relevant at all. You're looking at the document that clears Mike Mann of any malpractice with respect to what Phil Jones calls Mike's Nature Trick. While it may have been legitimate for Mann to do what he did in the Nature article, it was not legitimate for Phil Jones to blend together proxy and instrumental data for the WMO statement graph. I understand the British inquiries came to the same conclusion. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Two issues which might be worth separating. "Mike's nature trick" is a legitimate and commonly used way of comparing different data, and was used by others before him. The graph by Jones was a simplification, and according to him it was the WMO that required him to use the same colours blending the data together rather than showing the instrumental data in a different colour. In retrospect it is generally agreed that this was a bad idea, but it should also be noted that the WMO illustration had little public impact and was soon forgotten. The instrumental data was clearly shown in a distinct colour in the later graphs which were the subject of controversy. . . dave souza, talk 17:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is worth adding the POV tag back. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're pushing a fringe POV, as shown by some of your points. Would you like to sign each point allowing threaded discussion? For info, the para 1, line 2 source was cited in the second paragraph due to a recent split, I've added an additional inline link to the same citation. . . dave souza, talk 08:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's talk about the fringe POV since it's clear that neither you nor Viriditas are capable of discussing the issue of bias without reference to this fringe POV. Which points reveal a fringe POV and what is the fringe POV so I know what you're talking about. Alternatively you can delete your remark and my response. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
In order to relate responses to your comments, it will be clearer to thread them into the paragraphs you've used. For clarity, it will be best for you to sign each paragraph so readers are clear who said what. If you like, when I return to this later I can copy your sig and timestamp to each para. What are your preferences on this? . . dave souza, talk 09:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I've signed the points. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Alex, replies now in progress. . . dave souza, talk 16:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Article's appalling POV and bias

This article is POV and very biased. Which POV? All of them. It's also biased in every possible direction. This is what makes it appalling. It's nigh on impossible for a disinterested observer to read.

It seems that every point in the article has to be balanced with a counter-point, which then has to be balanced with an alternative view. The result is an unreadable mishmash.

The lead, for example, currently makes the following points. See if you can spot what I mean by POV and biased;

  1. The Climatic Research Unit email controversy
  2. It’s “dubbed” "Climategate"
  3. But only in the media
  4. It began in November 2009
  5. Lot’s of stuff got released.
  6. But maybe it was illegal
  7. Soon there were allegations
  8. By climate change sceptics
  9. And some others
  10. That revealed misconduct
  11. Which was rebutted
  12. And maybe it was illegal
  13. But maybe there was naughtiness pertaining to FOIA
  14. But there was no naughtiness for other stuff
  15. And the science is still right
  16. There were investigations (three, count them three!)
  17. That found there was no naughtiness
  18. Phil Jones had to stand aside
  19. But then stood back again
  20. In a new position.
  21. Cos he was cleared.
  22. But only of “the most serious charges”
  23. The investigations cleared everybody.
  24. But they should share better.
  25. And the science is still right
  26. And the climate guys are really doing a great job
  27. Really good.
  28. But they could do better.
  29. And everybody was picking on the climate guys
  30. But they were a bit naughty.
  31. But that was the university’s fault.
  32. Although they were just a little bit naughty.
  33. Michael Mann wasn’t naughty at all.

I propose that the lead be replaced in its entirety, without citations, by the following;

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") began in November 2009 when thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were made public. Within a few days allegations were made that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community. Subsequent inquiries did not find any evidence of scientific malpractice.

And if this works, next week I'll be in Moscow, showing you how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. --Thepm (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a mighty fine effort. I think WP:Recentism has something to do with the reason why the article is somewhat rambling, in that it was written in real-time, if you will. Everyone added sources as they were published, but after things were added, nothing was taken away. Re-writing the whole article more or less from scratch is one of those Herculean wiki-tasks I've contemplated but not quite gotten enough time or inclination to do. If someone has the cajones to take that on, it would be a worthwhile effort. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent first effort, though I would propose the following massive expansion:
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") began in November 2009 when thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were made public.
Within a few days allegations were made that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community. Subsequent inquiries did not find any evidence of scientific malpractice, however scientists should, in the future, be more responsive to information requests.
...and so the rampant creeping expansion begins again. (Of course, there's no way to edit the existing article. Since it has more footnotes, it must inherently be better than anything more concise or readable.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe. Call me Billy Mumphrey, but I think that it will be less likely to be subject to expansion if it's compact to begin with. As it stands now, I could add a cake recipe halfway through lead and nobody would ever know if not for their watchlists. --Thepm (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I guessed that your suggested addition was just to illustrate a point, but in case I guessed wrong, no, I don't agree with your expansion. What you've added was peripheral to the inquiries which were, in turn, subsequent to the subject of the article. It should definitely be in the article, but not in the lead. --Thepm (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, you're right. I misread the original post; I thought that the suggestion was the replace the entire article, rather than just the lead. (I figured there was just a hint of satire at work.) In that case, I fully endorse the original proposal. Good luck—you'll need it. TenOfAllTrades:::(talk) 14:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I certainly agree and would support this rewrite of the lead. I also particularly enjoyed your amusing breakdown of the lead. :-) Alex Harvey (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Second to Alex, and I applaud your efforts to clean up some of these hairballs. It will probably take fresh editors to make these things readable. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nicely condensed, one quibble is that it's wrong to say "Within a few days allegations were made...". As discussed above, the emails and other computer data were made public on 19 November when an archive file containing the data was uploaded to a server in Tomsk, and on 20 November it was already reported that "Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence... [the Mike's Nature trick] sentence, in particular, has been leapt upon by sceptics as evidence of manipulating data". So, better to have "By the next day critics of the science were making allegations...". It's also worth being clear that it was computer files, not printed documents that were made public, so suggest "thousands of emails and other computer files". It's certainly worth having a brief mentions of the issue of FOIA requests, the wording "however scientists should, in the future, be more responsive to information requests" seems a bit clumsy but has the virtue of being concise. . . dave souza, talk 17:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well. This wasn't what I expected to find here. I'm almost disappointed that we don't have a long list of demands for additional vital bits of minutiae that just have to be included in the lead.
Dave Souza makes a very good point that we know the actual dates. There's no need to say "in November 2009" or "within a few days". I'll incorporate that and make the changes. As I pointed out above, I intend to have no citations in the lead. --Thepm (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the "Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee", which was in the lead, to the info box next to "inquiries". I seem to have screwed up the references slightly. Can someone give me a hint what I've done wrong? --Thepm (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Thepm's whitewashing of the lead section, as it no longer summarizes the main points of the article per WP:LEAD. These kind of changes wouldn't hold up for a B, GA, or FA review. The previous summary and length were appropriate per the recommended size in the lead guideline. I also find the removal of the most important elements from the lead to be a form of POV in and of itself and I object to the misleading edit summary claiming that a "najor rewrite" had occurred. No such thing has occurred. What has happened, is that all of the most important elements of the article that are supposed be summarized in the lead section, have been deleted. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the wording to the following [7]:

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") refers to the unauthorised release of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009 and the subsequent controversy. It was alleged that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community, although subsequent inquiries have not found evidence of scientific malpractice.

I think the lead should define the incident first, and give the date and so on second. I don't think the date, the day, the number of days, minutes & seconds before the controversy erupted, is all that important. Feedback most welcome. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Viriditas and thanks for your comments. Are you suggesting some specific addition or you just think the lead should go back the way it was? I'm happy to change the edit summary, but I don't know how I can do that. Is there a way? It wasn't my intention to be misleading.
On another matter, I would appreciate it if you would replace the words "whitewashing of" with "changes to". As it stands now, it seems like you are accusing me of something. --Thepm (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Alex Harvey. I guess I would have preferred a chance to discuss that before you made the changes. I personally prefer to state the actual dates. I also think using the wording of "the following day" gives a sense of the immediacy with which the story broke. I think your last sentence is a little clumsy and the use of "have not found" rather than "did not find" suggests that the inquiries are continuing. All in all, I prefer the previous version. --Thepm (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Well we can change it back of course. The inquiries are likely to continue I think. The Republican Congress talked about inquiry #4 but maybe it won't happen. Anyhow, I think communicating immediacy is already to wander off down that path that will lead inevitably to lead expansion. I don't want to make a big deal about it however. What about:

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") refers to the unauthorised release of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) on 19 November 2009 and the subsequent controversy. It was alleged almost immediately that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community, although three inquiries found no evidence of scientific malpractice.

Is that better? I just believe it's better style to present the most pertinent information first, and I also feel having the date come first encourages editors to focus on the date, and then the fastness of it all, and then how evil the climate change skeptics were to make a controversy so quickly, and then of course how evil the climate scientists were to hide the decline, and before too long, we have that cake recipe appear that you mentioned. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the points made by Thepm, best to change it back unless and until changes to wording are agreed. Can you please self revert? In particular, your use of "although" unduly qualifies the finding of the inquiries, the findings stand better as a separate sentence. Better with "subsequent inquiries" rather than "three", as counting the Penn State investigation and the EPA report, there have been six. I've some sympathy with the points made by Viriditas, but rather like having a simple lead which we can always build on. There's also a need for improvements to the article. . . dave souza, talk 06:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I have self reverted and noted your points. What about:

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") refers to the unauthorised release of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) on 19 November 2009 and the subsequent controversy. It was alleged almost immediately that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community. However, a number of independent inquiries found no evidence of scientific malpractice.

Point taken on the number of inquiries. I didn't want to use 'subsequent' in both sentences as a matter of style. I don't really agree on 'although' and thinks it flows better that way, but how is this? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
{e/c}Here's another wording to consider:
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") refers to the unauthorised release of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) on 19 November 2009 and the ensuing controversy. It was alleged that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community; subsequent inquiries did not find such evidence.
MOS:LEAD says, "The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." The first rewrite did not define the topic. Wrt length of lead, as I understand there's a goal of abbreviating the article, so it's appropriate tighten up the lead, too. Yopienso (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC) It's changing fast! What's there right now does not define the topic and is not encyclopedic. It's pleasantly brief, but imo the definition should be first and clear. Yopienso (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think "subsequent inquiries did not find such evidence" is possibly misleading. It implies absolute dismissal of all allegations, and that didn't happen. "Subsequent inquiries found no evidence of scientific malpractice" is both accurate, and leaves the article free to mention the caveats. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm copacetic about that bit; whatever floats everybody's boat. Mainly I'm concerned with defining the controversy by what is was rather than when it happened. Lots of other, undefined, unrelated stuff happened that same day and time. ;) Yopienso (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
That is rather refreshing. Because that was precisely my own main concern. And no one is even threatening to topic ban me. I even learnt a new word, copacetic. :-) Alex Harvey (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposals for condensed lead

OK so is it okay if I change the lead to this:

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") refers to the unauthorised release of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) on 19 November 2009 and the ensuing controversy. It was alleged that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community, although subsequent inquiries found no evidence of scientific malpractice.

That seems to be what we've agreed upon, although I've put the 'although' back in that Dave didn't like. Not sure if that was a strong objection or if it still stands in the new context. If Dave likes, we can use the semicolon that Yopienso suggested. I'm not a fan of semicolons. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Actually I forgot that Thepm et al. wanted to highlight immediacy. If so, maybe we would have:

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") refers to the unauthorised release of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) on 19 November 2009 and the ensuing controversy. It was alleged almost immediately that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community, although subsequent inquiries found no evidence of scientific malpractice.

I feel pretty sure that any emphasis on immediacy gives information that is not really significant, and is already leading us away from neutrality. Nonetheless, I would support any of these options. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No, thanks. Once again, "although" is an unnecessary qualifier for the inquiries and possibly misleading. As shown above, the allegations were immediate, not "almost immediately". To be helpful, here's my first thought on improving these points:

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") refers to the unauthorised release of thousands of emails and other computer documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) on 19 November 2009, and the immediate controversy over allegations that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community. Subsequent inquiries found no evidence of scientific malpractice.

The fact that it was an immediate controversy covers both the point that the allegations began on the same day that the emails were made public, getting reported by the next day, and that the excitement over the controversy died away fairly rapidly so there was little attention in the media to the eventual findings of the later inquiries. . . dave souza, talk 16:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
That makes for a longer than ideal first sentence, but I still like it if we make it yet longer by one little word: insert "to" between "and" and "the immediate controversy". This makes clearer that the controversy was two-fold: the release of the emails and the furor about their contents. Alternately,

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") refers to the public furor caused by the unauthorised release of thousands of emails and other computer documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) on 19 November 2009. Controversy stirred over allegations that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community. Subsequent inquiries found no evidence of scientific malpractice.

I have deleted "Police searched for the culprits as..." from the beginning of my second proposed sentence. Nobody's suggesting a focus on the breach itself; why should I complicate matters?
The English language being so rich, there is an infinite number of good ways to craft the lede. That's enough from this Helpful Hannah! :) Yopienso (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Yopienso's proposed wording is fine with me, as is Dave's. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Very happy with the progress being made here :) I'm planning to have a go at some more of the article over easter. I'll post here before changing anything though.
Of the above, I prefer Dave's version although I do think the first sentence is a little long. I'd also like to lose the comma after "19 November 2009". I am not so fond of Yopienso's version because I think the language is a little more emotive. The phrases "public furor" and "Controversy stirred" both seem more emotive than encyclopaedic. Just to be clear, I don't have any great problem with Yopienso's version, just I think Dave's is better. Having said all that, I actually think it reads best as it is now. I understand though that the desire is to be clear that the subject of the article is the data release and the subsequent kerfuffle. --Thepm (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
A modification of Dave's, to resolve the long sentence and hopefully come up with something readable, that doesn't, ahem, move the the most precious bits to the end of sentences.

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") refers to the unauthorised release of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) on 19 November 2009 and the controversy that immediately followed. Subsequent inquiries found no evidence of scientific malpractice, despite allegations that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community.

Alex Harvey (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Although, from the logic above, you don't feel that the allegations were "the most precious bits", moving them to the end puts them out of sequence, and again you've linked with a sort of disclaimer, "despite". Also, we should be clear that they're computer documents, not paper ones. This might be resolved as below:

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") refers to the unauthorised release of thousands of emails and other computer documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) on 19 November 2009 and the controversy that immediately followed. Allegations that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community were refuted by subsequent inquiries which found no evidence of scientific malpractice.

. . dave souza, talk 08:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this wording might satisfy Alex's horror at the inherent bias of standard English sentence structure, which craftily places the object of a sentence at the end in the hope nobody will read that far:

Released, the documents were. Not found, evidence of malpractice was. Powerful, the Dark Side is.

I think we can all agree that this is the only way to avoid people sneaking things in at the end of sentences. Imagine, expecting the average Wikipedia user to read an entire sentence! Maybe we should just turn the article into a list of bullet points to make it even easier for the attention-deficit proletariat to digest? almightybob (pray) 09:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Almighty Bob, readers of this article come here to find out what 'Climategate' is. Our job is to make it as easy as possible for them to do this. Thus, we make sure they get the facts first, and some balanced treatment of opinions second. By the way, what's this got to do with the present discussion? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Dave, not all allegations were 'refuted'; I don't think that's a neutral presentation of the facts. With my wordings, 'although' and 'despite', I am just trying to get it to flow and can't for the life of me see how you read any 'disclaimer' in the subtext. Anyway, so long as we avoid 'refuted' I'll probably be happy. Regarding 'computer documents', most of the documents in the 'documents' directory are papers, half written emails, reviews of papers, and so on. There is some data, and a little bit of code. Referring to them as 'computer documents' is confusing to me; I wouldn't know what that meant if I was the reader. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Less than 2 hours before my response above, you were concerned about finding a sentence structure that doesn't, ahem, move the the most precious bits to the end of sentences. I'd say that qualifies my comment as part of the present discussion.
You have repeated this complaint throughout your detailed breakdown, repeatedly implying, if not outright stating, that putting words near the end of the sentence is some sort of deception which robs the reader of the true details of Climategate. Whereas I contend that 1) it merely follows standard English sentence structure of subject-verb-object, and 2) I don't think it's unreasonable for us to expect a Wikipedia user to read to the end of a sentence anyway, therefore nothing is lost.
Any of the last 3 or 4 variations is perfectly fine as a lead paragraph. The placing of semicolons, full stops, commas and the like are minor edits. Alex's suggestion of 7:37, 21 Apr is perfectly fine, it is an accurate summary, contains nothing objectionable and is NPOV. So is Yopienso's. Let's just use that, then move on to other ways to improve the article rather than endless fretting over whether a sentence is slightly too long or whether the word "however" subtly implies that party X is right.
Oh, and just call the documents "computer files", that covers everything. If the reader really wants to know exactly what kinds of computer files these were, there are links they can follow. almightybob (pray) 14:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, my 'ahem' indicated a joke. I kind of agree with you here. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking it over, the current formulation is better. Allegations of scientific misconduct were refuted, aspects of providing information to non-scientists and dealing with FOI requests for copies of emails could and should have been done better. The current issues seem to be arising with trying to use the "refers to" formulation which is unnecessary. The change from "documents" to "computer files" looks worthwhile. A possible minor modification of the current phrasing:

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") began on 19 November 2009 when thousands of emails and computer files from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were made public.
There was immediate controversy over allegations that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community. Subsequent inquiries found no evidence of scientific malpractice.

Either that or minor modifications to my version of 16:57, 20 April 2011, which seemed reasonably acceptable: delete the comma after the date, and add "to" as Yopienso suggested. Yopienso's alternative version had a couple of issues, including use of "furor" which is rather an Americanism even when spelt furore: not very encyclopaedic in UK usage, which is where the incident was centred. As said above, I can't support Alex's suggestions. . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the summary above is better than the current version. "Documents" makes me think of letters, deeds, accounts, and suchlike, whereas "computer files" summarises the reality better. "The following day, allegations were made" makes it sound like the whole incident took one day, whereas again "There was immediate controversy" gives the right impression of something starting the next day and going on for some time. "Found no evidence" correctly gives the impression that they looked and found none, whereas "did not find any evidence" leaves open the idea that it was there, but they were too slipshod to notice it. These are small points, but now that we are down to a 3.5 line summary, each of these phrases counts. I'm not happy with the present version, but think it could be salvaged by the changes suggested here. --Nigelj (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
@Alex: Ah, my bad. Humour on the interwebs etc, sorry then :)
@dave: The word "despite" is not a disclaimer. It is a word for linking two sentences or phrases. It's essentially a synonym for "however".
Observe that the following have identical meanings.
  1. The man was arrested. No charges were filed.
  2. The man was arrested, however no charges were filed.
  3. The man was arrested. However, no charges were filed.
  4. The man was arrested. Despite this, no charges were filed.
  5. Despite the man's arrest, no charges were filed.
  6. That criminal scum was arrested. No charges were filed.
OK, so one of them has a different meaning, and does indeed imply guilt. Pick whatever joining word you want.
@Nigelj: "Found no evidence" and "did not find any evidence" have exactly the same meaning. Anything left open by one is left open by the other - it would be perfectly reasonable to infer that they "found no evidence" because they were too slipshod to notice it too. The two phrases are synonymous. Either phrase conveys exactly how much evidence was found - none.
Seriously, we don't need to tiptoe for fear of having our cards marked. Let's not waste time arguing between identical phrasings, shall we? We all have better things to be doing. almightybob (pray) 00:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Dave's most recent proposal is the best so far. I think it should go in. I agree with Nigel's comment that "computer files" is better than "documents" and "immediate controversy" gives a better sense of the event than "the following day". Good work. --Thepm (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's just slap a few of those little superscript references in where appropriate now, and it's done (I would do it myself, but I'm not autoconfirmed yet). almightybob (pray) 10:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Implemented as agreed, with the minor modification of leaving the recently added link to Scientific misconduct at the end and changing "allegations that the emails revealed misconduct" to "allegations that the emails revealed malpractice" to avoid repetition. . . dave souza, talk 16:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Hooray for concensus :D --almightybob (pray) 17:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The lead section does not currently summarize the article nor represent the main points. It does not follow the recommended guidelines set forth by WP:LEAD in terms of scope and length, nor does it inform the reader of the exact circumstances of the illegal hacking and leak of private data that substantiated the false allegations made by climate denialists, who then proceeded to inundate the media outlets in what appeared to be a coordinated manner with false opinion pieces that perpetuated the false allegations before a single investigation had ever been completed. Instead, in its place, this propaganda campaign by every definition of the word, is now whitewashed to read that the computer files just happened to be "made public" all by their little lonesome selves. Beautiful work. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the link to scientific misconduct in the lead. A casual reader glancing at the lead might think that such misconduct actually occurred, and this is an example of a poor use of linking intended to impart guilt by association. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, through a great deal of discussion the lead section was arrived at by general consensus. Pretty much all the editors here have shown remarkable good faith by suggesting edits here before making them in the article. Please help to maintain this good faith by suggesting your changes here before implementing them in the article. --Thepm (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The last version of the lead was arrived at by the input of dozens of editors over more than a year. You unilaterally deleted it and added your own version without taking into account the general consensus and the good faith that went into creating it. Nobody has to get permission from anyone to edit this or any other article. If you have a problem with my edits, please raise them. I have already contributed to this discussion and repeatedly raised the point that you edits violate WP:LEAD and do not summarize the article. Furthermore, I have commented on the linking and the media controversy in separate sections. I do not need your permission to edit. You, on the other hand, need to answer my questions as to why you feel that WP:LEAD does not apply and why you believe the lead section should not accurately summarize the topic. I have waited for an answer from you and I have not yet received one. Don't revert me again and appeal to a consensus that prevents editors from editing, since there is no such thing. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
In fact the last version of the lead was not mine, but was in fact proposed by Dave Souza. It was largely based on one that I suggested, which was supported by Sailsbystars, TenOfAllTrades, Alex Harvey, Pete Tillman and dave souza. At the time that I made the change, they were the only responses to my proposal and I figured at 6 out of 6 (including me) that we had broad consensus and I made the changes. Shortly afterward, you expressed discontent and I asked whether you were "suggesting some specific addition or you just think the lead should go back the way it was?" You didn't reply.
Further discussion on the lead resulted in the version which was the one you changed. Editors that contributed to that version included those mentioned above as well as Yopienso, almightybob and Nigelj. It is unfair for you to say that I "unilaterally deleted it and added your own version without taking into account the general consensus and the good faith that went into creating it."
In light of this false premise, that I "unilaterally" changed the lead, your question doesn't make sense.
Once again, I will encourage you to assume good faith of all editors and to assist with improving the article by discussion and consensus. --Thepm (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't some of this excessive Talk count as Wikipedia:Tendentious editing behavior?

Wouldn't some of this excessive Talk count as Wikipedia:Tendentious editing behavior? (Just asking) 99.181.155.158 (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. The co-operation and goodwill that's been shown the last few days is a bit scary actually. I kind of worried that everybody's going to link hands and start singing kumbaya. --Thepm (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have the guitar, if you can sort us out with some tie-dye t-shirts. almightybob (pray) 10:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Vcolin's edit of 15:10, 22 April 2011

User:Vcolin has made the following edit with the summary "Removed a small amount of bias":

Changed "These two phrases from the emails were also taken out of context by climate change sceptics" to "These two phrases from the emails were also used by climate change sceptics"
Removed "even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high" from the same sentence.

On investigation I see that this isn't correction of bias, it's removal of significant information. I suggest that we revert this mistaken edit. --TS 15:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I see another editor has already reverted it.
Personally, I can see where he's coming from on the first edit - unless a source has said they were taken out of context, Wikipedia shouldn't. I've just read through the article referenced at the end of the sentence, and it doesn't say they used the phrases out of context. However, it does essentially say that they misinterpreted the phrases, which probably better represents the actual situation. I would support a change of "taken out of context" to "misinterpreted", but not to "used" since that doesn't indicate they were used incorrectly.
The second part of the edit is indefensible - the reference supplied explicitly states that the email was written in a year that recorded an all-time high temperature. There is no reason to remove that information. almightybob (pray) 17:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Alternatively, there is a BBC interview here [1] with Prof. Phil Jones which does state that the phrases were "taken out of context", so if we wanted to keep the original wording we could source it with that. almightybob (pray) 17:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Bob, there are plenty of sources that indicate that the phrases were used out of context, but the current phrasing (ie after reverting Vcolin) does seem to take a particular PoV. I'd prefer to see the phrase "were used by climate change sceptics" as the current phrasing would suggest that there was something deliberate about using them out of context. (whether that's true or not is almost irrelevant for this section).
There's also a matter of not taking our readers for idiots (again, no comment on the truth of this). In the sentence before, we say that the phrase refers to tree rings. It's obvious then that using the phrases "as though they referred to a decline in measured global temperatures" is taking them out of context. You don't need to say it. The additional phrase "even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high" is also unnecessary. They're taken out of context even if Miami is three feet deep in snow.
Personally, I think Vcolin's changes were good ones. --Thepm (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Can we just be clear that after all this time, reports, etc., assertions that the hackers may have acted out of line are not 'a particular PoV': anything else is fringe. --Nigelj (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Nigel, I'm a bit concerned that you're not wearing the tie-dyed t-shirts that I distributed earlier. We're not talking about the hackers, we're talking about subsequent use of the emails.
As a by-the-way comment, I think that the use of the emails belongs in the "responses" section, not the "contents of the documents" section, but that's another story. --Thepm (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thepm, perhaps there's a case for restructuring for greater clarity then - the sentence could probably be phrased better. But the original edit was to "correct bias", which I don't see as being justified, because the reliable sources say the same as the sentence.
How about this:

These two particular phrases from the emails were often quoted by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, who interpreted them as referring to a decline in measured global temperatures and not the tree ring data.

Thoughts? --almightybob (pray) 09:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

When we are being asked to consider extreme weather events in individual US cities being used as evidence against the whole of global warming in an article about hacked e-mails, my hopes that we are still trying to improve the article do wear thin. But mainly, typing more the minimum number of words here from a mobile phone is demanding. Back on a full-size keyboard, I can add bloggers, tabloid journos, op-ed writers, industry-sponsored spokespeople, conspiracy theorists, certain US politicians, and many others to 'hackers' in my sentence above. That "These two phrases from the emails were also taken out of context by climate change sceptics" and that "they were written when temperatures were at a record high" are well sourced statements, and there is no legitimate reason for their removal. As I said, the fact that several people acted badly over this is well documented, is not 'a particluar PoV', and should be clearly stated in the article, as it is the mainstream accepted conclusion to this story. Oh, and that there are loopholes in FOI laws that mean that such requests should be handled by university legal people rather than scientists in the future, but that's a separate issue. --Nigelj (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The particular sentence we're discussing has nothing to do with the hackers though Nigel, which is why Thepm (and myself) were confused by your response. Nobody was talking about hackers, whether they were out of line or otherwise, or any fringe/non-fringe PoV of the hackers' actions. So your response seemed wildly off-topic and unnecessarily confrontational about an issue that wasn't even in question.
Back on-topic: While I agree that both those phrases are well-sourced, that's not why I'm suggesting their removal. The sentence is clumsy, and needs restucturing. If you actually read my suggested replacement, you'll see that it's still clear the phrases were taken out of context. If you're adamant that the "record high" be kept in, then we could add another sentence afterwards, saying something like "In addition, no temperature decline had been observed that year, since the year the emails were sent recorded a record high in temperatures." Although personally I feel it's unnecessary - we've just pointed out the skeptics were wrong because the phrase wasn't even about recorded temperature. There seems little reason to say "and even if it had been about temperature, they were still wrong. So there."
And yes, FOI-related stuff is a completely separate issue. This subsection is about Vcolin's edit. I don't know why you keep bringing unrelated things into it. --almightybob (pray) 11:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I explained exactly who I was referring to in my edit of 10:13, 23 April 2011, and why my previous contribution had been brief. I did read your suggested replacement and it does not mention anything taken out of context. You said yourself that, "the reference supplied explicitly states that the email was written in a year that recorded an all-time high temperature. There is no reason to remove that information", and yet your suggested replacement does. The reason I mentioned FOI was to say there are two main points that need to made in this article, and that is the other one. Please try to be more collegial. --Nigelj (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Your 08:17 edit didn't make sense in the context - nobody was saying that a hacker PoV was fringe, or asserting that they were out of line/in line.
Your 10:13 edit doesn't explain who your 08:17 edit was referring to. I assumed from the tone of the phrase "Can we just be clear" that it was addressed to everyone involved in this conversation, which is about the particular sentence Vcolin edited.
As far as I can tell, everything in your 10:13 edit up to "... in my sentence above" is offtopic. That, or it really needs rephrasing, because I honestly have no idea how it relates to the sentence Vcolin edited.
Back on-topic (again) - no, my suggested revision doesn't explicitly say "this was out of context", but the second half of the sentence (after Sarah Palin) makes it pretty obvious that the data was incorrectly used, i.e. out of context.
I did indeed say that, but that was when the phrase was taken out for bias. I didn't agree with that because the sentence was not biased - it was clearly sourced. We're now talking about restructuring the sentence for clarity, and in that case I do support removing it, because removal helps the sentence flow better.
Bringing up FOI in the middle of another discussion is exactly what I mean by off-topic and confusing. If you want to address FOI in the article, that's fine. We can do that. But let's separate that conversation from this one. Throwing it into the middle of a completely unconnected discussion about sentence structure is very confusing for your fellow editors. --almightybob (pray) 16:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
OK. Forget it. I have no idea what you're talking about now. Just don't go changing the article on the basis of any "consensus" with that form of discussion. --Nigelj (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the "Content of the Documents" section tries to cover too much. It should be a section focused, without analysis, on the content of the documents. I'll discuss this further in a new section. --Thepm (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Jim Inhofe and Sarah Palin know virtually nothing about climate change science. Portraying them as "climate change skeptics" is absurd. Almightybob's reliance on these people to "who interpreted [the emails] as referring to a decline in measured global temperatures and not the tree ring data" is simply an argument from authority. Inhofe and Palin are only notable for their outright denial of climate science. They are not known for any expertise on this or any other scientific topic. Therefore, their relevance to this topic is only important when discussing the political machinations of certain people and groups with regards to their campaign against climate science and repeated attacks on climate scientists. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Purely from a personal perspective, I would have thought the unifying criteria for the overwhelming majority of climate skeptics was exactly that they know nothing about climate science. That's the problem - those who know the science almost exclusively accept AGW. Who would you portray as "climate change skeptics" except people who don't know what they're talking about?
I left the Inhofe and Palin references in because they were already in the sentence, and because several of the notable quotes of these phrases being taken out of context are directly attributable to them. It is not an argument from authority, and you should really check the definitions of logical fallacies before you bandy them around. --almightybob (pray) 09:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Media Reception

The section "Media Reception" is currently a sub-heading under "Reports" which seems a bit odd to me. I plan to move it - unchanged - to be a subheading of "Responses", which seems more appropriate. I think it should be the first subheading in that section. If we don't have consensus for that, I think it should come immediately before "Other responses". --Thepm (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the new media played the primary role in propagating the allegations with conservative, climate denialist bloggers and pundits fueling the so-called "controversy" until it reached a saturation point and boiled over into the old media, I think we need a new section devoted just to the media and its portrayal of this incident. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
We already have a section called "Media reception". It links through to a separate article on Media coverage of climate change in general. My initial instinct would be that we already have sufficient coverage. Are you saying there's more you want to add? Can you indicate what?
As for the existing section on the media reception as it relates to this topic, are you happy for me to move it from "Reports" to "Responses"? --Thepm (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
No, you are mistaken. We have a sub-section on media reception, not a section. You are referring to a daughter sub-article called media coverage of climate change, which in fact, says little to nothing about this topic. The media reception is one of the primary topics behind the controversy itself and should be represented in its own section and in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, we have a sub-section called "Media reception". It links through to a separate article on Media coverage of climate change in general, which currently does not cover this topic very well. My initial instinct would be that we already have sufficient coverage in this article. Are you saying there's more you want to add? Can you indicate what?
As for the existing section on the media reception as it relates to this topic, are you happy for me to move it from "Reports" to "Responses"? --Thepm (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the media coverage in "Reports" is predominantly the response quite some time after the actual event, i.e. after the inquiries. I suspect what Veriditas wants is a section about the immediate media response, i.e. the cries of foul play.
I see no reason not to have two subsections - one under "Responses" which talks about the immediate media uproar and allegations of misconduct just after the leak, and one under "Reports" which talks about the media's response after the scientists were cleared of said misconduct in the enquiries. --almightybob (pray) 09:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
At present, the "contents" section largely reports immediate responses, we should be able now to separate that out from a brief outline of the amount of info and the most discussed soundbites, taking into account detailed inquiry findings. . . dave souza, talk 10:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Content of the documents - proposed rewrite

The section headed "Content of the documents" has attracted some discussion. I think this is partly because it tries to cover too much. For example, there is a lengthy discussion of which phrases were used, whether they were taken out of context and what colours were used in the WMO graph. Much of this detail would be better in the "Responses" section. With this in mind and buoyed by our recent successful rewrite of the lead, I propose substantially reducing this section and focusing more closely on the content. I suggest replacing the section entirely with the following;

The material comprised more than 1,000 emails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[19]


According to an analysis in The Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn[2], a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The four were either recipients or senders of all but 66 of the 1,073 emails, with most of the remainder of the emails being sent from mailing lists. A few other emails were sent by, or to, other staff at the CRU. Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme had written high-profile scientific papers on climate change that had been cited in reports by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[6]

Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[20] The Guardian's analysis of the emails found that they had been filtered using keywords including "Yamal", "tree rings", and "Phil Jones".[6]

Much of the controversy focused on a small number of emails and on specific phrases within those emails. The phrases “hide the decline”, “Mike’s Nature trick” and "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t" attracted particular attention. [5] [20]

Independent reviews by FactCheck and the Associated Press said that the emails did not affect evidence that man made global warming is a real threat, and that emails were being misrepresented. The AP said that the "[e]-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data."[29][30]

An editorial in Nature stated that "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories."[27]

I also think that the article would be well served by a graphical representation of the timeline. In a sort of box type of thing. It would help break up the text and probably allow us to condense that section. Alas, I am basically incompetent in this sort of thing. Is anybody able to help?

(eta) I also think the heading should be changed from "Content of the documents" to "Content of the computer files". --Thepm (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a good start on pruning back this overgrown section -- which should be a summary of the full discussion at Climatic Research Unit documents -- which itself could use cleanup in due course. This proposal may be a bit too telegraphic, but I don't have time now to try an alternate rework.
I don't think the rename is really necessary, as we've already specified these were electronic documents.
I agree that a timeline would aid readers, but am equally clueless on such graphics. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the section needs a re-write, and also that a timeline could help. I'm an enthusiastic amateur with GIMP so I could have a go at one after my exams are finished (a week or so). Any thoughts on the main features that should appear on it?
I haven't had time to read through that entire proposed amendment but will get my thoughts down when I have the chance. --almightybob (pray) 09:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Gallup item

I thought this was interesting. Gallup, in citing recent survey results, refers to "the climate data-fixing scandal known as Climategate". Link here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147203/Fewer-Americans-Europeans-View-Global-Warming-Threat.aspx Greenbough (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I fail to see how it could possibly be considered interesting or relevant to this topic in any way. The poll concludes that "Americans and Europeans feeling substantially less threatened by climate change than they did a few years ago, while more Latin Americans and sub-Saharan Africans see themselves at risk" has nothing to do with the science of global warming or with this encyclopedia topic. That people are ignorant is a given; that people remain ignorant when presented with evidence that contradicts their cherished belief system is well known. This has nothing to do with this article and this talk page thread should be removed as off topic. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It is a result or part of the aftermath of the subject of this article and therefore relevant. Another quote: "World residents' declining concern about climate change may reflect increasing skepticism about global warming after Climategate and the lack of progress toward global climate policy." Isn't that what many scientists were afraid of? Yopienso (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Please read more carefully. There is no evidence it is the result or aftermath of this subject. We have an opinion from Anita Pugliese and Julie Ray, whomever they are. They also claim that "The drops also may reflect the poor economic times". This is not the first poll to make this claim; Rasmussen Reports made it as well. In any case, Pugliese and Ray refer to Climategate as the "climate data-fixing scandal". I am curious, what climate data was "fixed"? In any case, the poll says nothing about this topic. It only asks, "How serious of a threat is global warming to you and your family?" The Climategate interpretation has no connecting evidence. It is the opinion of Pugliese and Ray and appears to have nothing to back it up. I think we want to rely on sources that are based on actual evidence. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It's pertinent to this article because Gallup is a respected polling organization that suggests that Climategate affected the American and European public's perceptions of the seriousness of global warming. "ANITA PUGLIESE is a Principal Consultant for Gallup. JULIE RAY is a writer and analyst at Gallup who focuses exclusively on global polling data." Did you notice the page Greenbough linked to is on the Gallup website? A more technical article of theirs was published in the Fall, 2009 Harvard Review. "Fixing" refers to the allegations that Mann, Jones, et al, "doctored" their findings. If Gallup connects the two, it's a RS. The one time I saw a Gallup Poll administered, to my mother umpteen years ago, it took over two hours--they didn't ask just one question. Not sure how they are today, but we can't throw out Gallup and Roper because we don't like what they say.
Here's a negative article on a similar poll a year ago. The author calls it "claptrap" and says it's as foolish as the polls that claimed Pres. Reagan was popular. The claptrap is his--Reagan won his second election in a landslide. I'd say he was popular, and I'd say there's been some fallout from the email hacking controversy. Yopienso (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas, I find it pretty absurd that you would happily assert that public confidence in climate science was damaged by Climategate in your revision of the article lead, but then recoil in horror when a reliable source which backs up that claim is presented to you. --almightybob (pray) 09:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is nothing "absurd" about summarizing the most significant points of our encyclopedia article in the lead section, in this case, Webster 2009, Jonsson 2010, and many others. Those are secondary sources, and that's what we use to write Wikipedia articles. The Gallup poll cited above in this thread has nothing to do with this topic and is considered a primary source. The poll did not ask people about this topic. Instead, we have two authors, Pugliese and Ray, interjecting their opinion about a poll, an opinion that raises several red flags. One, they refer to this topic as a "climate data-fixing scandal" for some reason. Two, they claim, out of the blue and without any evidence and without any reference to evidence provided by this poll, that declining interest in climate change may either 1) "reflect increasing skepticism about global warming after Climategate" 2) "and the lack of progress toward global climate policy", and 3) "may reflect the poor economic times". In other words, they are just throwing this out there. This source is not usable for Wikipedia. If it was, the poll itself, the very subject of the source, would have something, anything to do with this topic. A close reading shows that it does not. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Gallup report on their poll mentions "Climategate", but draws no firm conclusions. They note that in the UK, "ground zero for the climate data-fixing scandal known as Climategate in 2009", there wsa less of a fall in public concern than there was in France. Highlighting may, "World residents' declining concern about climate change may reflect increasing skepticism about global warming after Climategate and the lack of progress toward global climate policy. The drops also may reflect the poor economic times, during which Gallup research generally finds environmental issues become less important." and "Gallup's data show that fewer Americans and Europeans, whose nations are central players in these talks, feel threatened by global warming today than they did in recent years. However, majorities in many of these countries still see climate change as a serious threat, which means the issue remains personally important to them." So, only useful for a very nuanced mention. . . dave souza, talk 10:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I strongly disagree with your removal of "public confidence in climate science was tainted by continuing controversy in the media" as this is an accurate summary supported by the current article and in many reliable sources on the subject, including the reports. As an example, it appears in several places in this article, including Webster 2009 ("the Met Office indicated its intention to re-examine 160 years of temperature data in the light of concerns that public confidence in the science had been damaged by the controversy over the emails"); Jonsson 2010 ("While public opinion had steadily moved away from belief in man-made global warming before the leaked CRU emails, that trend has only accelerated") etc. There is a quote from an article in The New York Times that also supports it. I'm in the process of trying to find it now. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There are additional sources that support my wording. "Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust", a working paper by Leiserowitz et al. (2010)[8] says:

Nationally representative surveys conducted in 2008 and 2009 found significant declines in Americans’ climate change beliefs, risk perceptions, and trust in scientists. Several potential explanations for the declines are explored, including the poor state of the economy, a new administration and Congress, diminishing media attention, and abnormal weather. The analysis also specifically examines the impact of Climategate – an international scandal resulting from the unauthorized release of emails between climate scientists in England and United States. The results demonstrate that Climategate had a significant effect on public beliefs in global warming and trust in scientists. The loss of trust in scientists, however, was primarily among individuals with a strongly individualistic worldview or politically conservative ideology. Nonetheless, Americans overall continue to trust scientists more than other sources of information about global warming.

Further, the paper reports on a survey that was taken after the Climategate story broke:

respondents were then asked: "Have these stories about the controversial emails caused you to have more or less trust in climate scientists?" Over half (53%) said that the stories had caused them to have much less (29%) or somewhat less (24%) trust in scientists, while 43 percent said it had not affected their level of trust. Five percent said they had more trust in scientists as a result of the news stories.

And for Almightybob101, in case he missed it: Please note how this working paper reports on a survey about Cimategate and the Gallup report does not. I hope you understand the difference. Viriditas (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the lead.

Following lengthy discussion, the lead of the article was substantially reduced and the agreed wording was

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") began on 19 November 2009 when thousands of emails and computer files from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were made public.


There was immediate controversy over allegations that the emails revealed malpractice within the climate science community. Subsequent inquiries found no evidence of scientific misconduct.

Viriditas has subsequently made a number of changes to the lead, adding material that I feel is only marginally relevant in the lead and that will, in my opinion, lead us once again to a point where the lead will consist of a series of points and counter-points rather than being a summary of the subject event. I reverted the first set of changes and requested him to discuss such changes before making them as this has become the norm here in recent times. Viriditas pointed out to me that there is no requirement to discuss these changes. He has made additional changes since.

He is right of course, there is no need to obtain permission before making changes. I do feel though, that for an article such as this, the process of discussing changes before making them is a good one and an approach that encourages good faith on the part of all editors.

Viriditas seems to feel that I am personally responsible in some way for edits that he feels are objectionable. I have pointed out that this is not the case, but I think it would be best for other editors to express their view at this time. --Thepm (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the most recent add, as it unbalances the lede and has obvious (to me) NPOV problems.
Here's the passage I removed:
Serious allegations against climate scientists by climate sceptics were summarily rejected by five separate investigations, however, public confidence in climate science was tainted by continuing controversy in the media. The Columbia Journalism Review criticized the mainstream media for covering the initial controversy but failing to also cover the results of the investigations.
I agree that other recent edits to the lede aren't improvements. Perhaps we should revert to The PM's version, above, and discuss proposed changes here first, as he did, to build consensus. I'm impressed with the collegial behavior and civil discussions here so far, and would hope we can continue such. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"it unbalances the lede and has obvious (to me) NPOV problems...Your edits aren't improvements" isn't a valid form of discussion nor a recognized type of dissent or argument. You need to actually demonstrate your disagreement on the talk page. I'm here awaiting your reasoning and I find nothing except "please use the talk page". Well, if you disagree with an edit, you are supposed to use the talk page to explain why you disagree with it. "Not an improvement" is not an accepted form of disagreement. The facts, show, my edits are supported by the best sources in the article and properly summarized per WP:LEAD. You are welcome to try and improve the lead section if you find that something is missing. You are not, however, allowed to continually tag-team revert and demand that editors get your permission to edit this article. You cannot expect me to accept your tag team reverts asking me to see the talk page when there is nothing for me to see or respond to. Again, in case you missed it, your objections as expressed above are as follows:
1. it unbalances the lede
2. has obvious (to me) NPOV problems
3. aren't improvements
Tillman, you haven't shown how my edits unbalanced the lead (they summarize significant material per WP:LEAD; you haven't show any obvious NPOV problems (which you admit only you know about); and you haven't demonstrated how removing ambiguity, adding precision, and expanding the lead isn't considered an improvement. Please demonstrate your three outstanding claims with examples. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I made some adjustments to Viriditas's wording. Can you live with that? --John (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the lead is much better slightly expanded as it is now. It was too long, but then it was so shortened as to give very little information about the controversy or the article. It now gives a very good flavour of the basic points in very few words. --Nigelj (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree, this modest expansion is a considerable improvement. . dave souza, talk 08:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"You need to actually demonstrate your disagreement on the talk page."
"Well, if you disagree with an edit, you are supposed to use the talk page to explain why you disagree with it."
... you do realise you failed to do both these things?
"You cannot expect me to accept your tag team reverts asking me to see the talk page when there is nothing for me to see or respond to."
You obviously didn't spot the "Alternative proposals to condensed lead" section on this talk page, where 6 editors discussed the changes to the lead for several days before making a concensus edit.


Anyway, back on-topic - I'm not against expanding the lead, and there are some worthwhile bits. However, as it is, it contains inconsistencies and has problems.
  1. How many reviews were there? Second paragraph suggests 3 (House of Commons, UAE internal, independent review) but third paragraph says 5.
  2. The first sentence of paragraph 3 needlessly parrots the last sentence of paragraph 2. A better first sentence for paragraph 3 might be "Although the enquiries rejected the allegations of misconduct, public confidence in climate science...blah blah blah".
  3. The last sentence of paragraph 1 is clumsy. The "server breached" phrase makes it clear it was done without permission, we don't need to restate it again. I would prefer "...emails and computer files were circulated around the Internet."
  4. In paragraph 2, I would prefer "However, subsequent enquiries...". It flows better than just lumping the two opposing statements together.
Also, the commas in paragraph 2 are a bit of a mess, but I can tidy that up later. --almightybob (pray) 10:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Current version, new third para:

Serious allegations against climate scientists by climate sceptics were rejected by five separate investigations, but public confidence in climate science was tainted by continuing controversy in the media. The Columbia Journalism Review criticized the mainstream media for covering the initial controversy but failing to cover the results of the investigations.

-- still has serious problems in tone, factuality and NPOV.

"Serious allegations against climate scientists": inappropriate tone, it's not WP's place to judge what is serious. In any case, prima facie evidence of violation of the UK FOIA, per the UK Info Commissioner, would seem to be a serious (and largely unrefuted) matter.

"public confidence in climate science was tainted by continuing controversy in the media." NPOV, many argue that public confidence was diminished by the actions of the CRU (etc) scientists themselves, in particular their reluctance to release their data. "Tainted" is a loaded, POV term.

"The Columbia Journalism Review criticized..." --not the place for this. For NPOV, we'd need a rebuttal, then a counter-rebuttal.... Inappropriate for the lede. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Pete.
On your first point: I think that both your issues with the opening phrase would be resolved by my suggested edit above: "Although the enquiries rejected the allegations of misconduct, public confidence in climate science...". How do you feel about that rephrasing?
Regarding the second point: would you be happy with "public confidence in climate science was tainted by the event."? That way, WP isn't asserting what caused the diminishing of confidence. Plus we have the Gallup poll mentioned in another subsection, which we can use as a reference that trust in climate science was damaged.
Third point: Why does NPOV require a rebuttal?
I somewhat support moving this to a different part of the article - perhaps the "Responses" section along with the other media reactions - but not on POV grounds. I have yet to see a source praising the media for their reaction - only sources criticizing them for overreaction. Unless some sources praised the media, then offering a rebuttal in their defence would be giving that opinion undue weight. --almightybob (pray) 16:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Ed BOB: thanks for your comments. I generally agree with your first two, but don't like the use of "taint", which I see as a loaded, POV term.
Re: CJR -- my bad, poorly thought-out critique.What I should have said: there are plenty of RS criticisms of the MSM coverage of Climategate, and I saw no reason to single out this particular one to put in the lede. From my recollection, there was plenty of coverage of the results of the CG investigations.
IMO, we should try again on the lede rewrite, building on the last version that had broad consensus. I'm working on a specific proposal, which I'll post here. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from on "tainted". Perhaps "diminished" or "lessened" then?
RE:CJR: Ah OK, I get you now. I suspect the reason the CJR was singled out is because it's a magazine specifically about the journalism profession, and as such is probably one of the sources best qualified to comment on the failings (or otherwise) of journalists.
I would be happy to take another stab at the lead - while I feel the concensus one we arrived at earlier was an excellent starting ground, there's certainly room for expansion and improvement. I'm looking forward to your proposal :)
Oh, and I'm Bob, not Ed :P --almightybob (pray) 19:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Doh <smacks head> --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Climategate's effect on public opinion

This has become somewhat controversial for the lede. The Gallup survey discussed earlier (see above) says:

World residents' declining concern about climate change may reflect increasing skepticism about global warming after Climategate and the lack of progress toward global climate policy. The drops also may reflect the poor economic times, during which Gallup research generally finds environmental issues become less important.

-- which makes the cause somewhat equivocal, as Dave Souza has pointed out. However, the declining public concern has now shown up in a number of surveys, and should be mentioned in the lede, I think, with suitable qualifications & updated cites to be added to the body of the article. I've reworded the clause to reflect Gallup's interpretation. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  1. Mentioning public opinion in the lead isn't controversial.
  2. Editors should understand how to identify and use good reliable sources. The Gallup survey in question does not poll on the topic of Climategate and therefore should not be included. The lead should not be reworded to reflect the Gallup poll in question because that particular poll has nothing to do with this topic. We already have a significant number of sources and polls that reflect directly on the topic.
  3. Tillman introduced POV and bias into the lead section with his change. Previously, the lead indicated that the nature of public opinion with the neutral appellation "impacted". This is because several different sources interpret the measure of public opinion in different ways. Tillman ignored the sources on this subject and instead added "public concern about climate change was diminished" which is not what the reliable sources say.
Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mismatched date of the breach

In the lead we say it began "on 19 November 2009 when a server was breached", In the "Timeline of the initial incident" section we say "The breach was first discovered on 17 November 2009." --Thepm (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We could avoid this problem if we just stopped worrying about the exact date it started on. There are 3 dates of significance I suppose: the date at which the servers were actually breached; the date at which the breach was discovered; and the date on which data was made public. I don't believe any reader will care less about all this though. Thus, we could simply say, "it began in November 2009". Alex Harvey (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree to an extent. Specific dates are important, but not necessary in the introduction. I changed it to "in November 2009". Maghnus (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To-do list for this article

Revisions, updates and/or rewrites needed:

(Please add sections as you review them.)
  • Lede: in progress
  • Content of the documents: active proposal on-deck from ThePM
  • Responses:
  • Information Commissioner's Office: an unreadable hairball. Needs a complete rewrite.
  • Public opinion and political fallout: needs updating to more recent polls, review of "Climategate anniversary" summary articles, and general updating.
Fewer Americans, Europeans View Global Warming as a Threat, Gallup poll report 4/20/2011; identified and discussed at Talk here and here: added to lede, needs to be summarized and added to article here.

I'm convinced that with patience, good humor, cooperation -- and a lot of work -- we can make this into an article that an ordinary reader, with no expertise on the topic, can read, understand, and come away better-informed on this important topic. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  1. The Gallup poll link above has nothing to do with this subject. We already have polls and secondary sources that survey the public about this controversy.
  2. The structure of the article needs to be rewritten in terms of content not quotes. This will take editors writing an article about the controversy in terms of a narrative, not POV pushing their pet theories and pet sources.
  3. The responses section might have worked as a repository for real time additions, but now that we have a stable event, the "responses" need to be integrated into a historical narrative.
  4. The article needs to be updated to reflect the most current sources. Older sources containing inaccurate information should be replaced.
  5. Inhofe's requested 2009 inquiry into the incident was completed by the inspector general of the Dept. of Commerce. It needs to be added to the inquiries and reports section.[9]
Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't work

This edit, which claims a consensus (in which section?), has introduced a major POV problem:

Subsequent inquiries by a House of Commons science committee and a UEA assessment panel and review found no evidence of any scientific misconduct. Serious allegations against the scientists by climate sceptics were rejected in five separate investigations. Sceptics remained unconvinced by the findings and public opinion was impacted. Although they were cleared of wrongdoing, climate scientists were taken to task for their poor communication and slow response to the media, leading commentators to describe the incident as a "public relations disaster". Columbia Journalism Review criticized the media for covering the initial controversy but failing to report the results of the investigations which exonerated the scientists.

Compare:

Eventually the suspect was acquitted after several witnesses confirmed the alibi and no traces of the subject's DNA were found near the victim. The victim's parents remained unconvinced and the suspect's reputation was impacted. Although he was cleared of wrongdoing, the suspect was taken to task for lack of cooperation with the authorities and for threatening members of the press. Columbia Journalism Review criticized the media for covering the initial allegations but failing to report the verdict which exonerated the suspect.

I don't care whether we mention the Columbia Journalism Review or not. It seems appropriate to me but not necessary. But we can't "balance" an exoneration with trivia until it reads like the opposite. Hans Adler 22:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Hans, that's exactly what happened in the O.J. Simpson murder case. In real life everything isn't quite so tidy as we like our writing to be. (Consider also Lizzie Borden, the John F.Kennedy assassination and the 9/11 conspiracy theories. We can't ignore controversies and conspiracy theories that are covered by the MSM, regardless of our opinion of them.) Yopienso (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't get your point. We are writing an encyclopedia, and in this particular case we are writing the lead of an encyclopedia article. We can't push a conspiracy theory in the lead of an article. The last sentence solved this problem neatly. If the claimed consensus to remove it ever existed, I must have missed it. Hans Adler 23:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
My understanding of your point is that your second paragraph is an example of something ridiculous. I'm pointing out the ridiculous sometimes happens. If you click on the articles I mention, you will see in every case the controversy or conspiracy is part of the lead. The title of this article is not "Climatic Research Unit," but "Climatic Research Unit email controversy." Therefore it is imperative to mention the controversy in the lead.
If I have misunderstood your point, I beg your pardon. Frankly, I don't understand why you have the CJR in the second paragraph or what the striking indicates. If you are only asking that that one sentence be removed, please disregard what I said. Yopienso (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's a POV problem. Once again, we appear to be including every PoV to the detriment of the article as a whole. If you break down the article, you find as follows (my comments in italics)

Subsequent inquiries by a House of Commons science committee and a UEA assessment panel and review found no evidence of any scientific misconduct. this implies that other inquiries did find evidence Serious allegations against the scientists by climate sceptics were rejected in five separate investigations. why is there a distinction made between "separate" inquiries? are there non-separate inquiries? Sceptics remained unconvinced by the findings and public opinion was impacted. "impacted" is entirely the wrong word. They were "affected". Although they were cleared of wrongdoing, climate scientists were taken to task for their poor communication and slow response to the media, leading commentators to describe the incident as a "public relations disaster". using the idiom "taken to task" is inappropriate. We mean "criticised".

I consider that the entire paragraph above can be replaced by "Subsequent inquiries found no evidence of any scientific misconduct." We do not need to list the inquiries. We don't need both "allegations were rejected" and "found no evidence". I don't think we need to mention public opinion, but if we do, let's just say "Public opinion was affected by the ensuing controversy". The fact that sceptics (presumably climate sceptics) were unconvinced is entirely unremarkable. They wouldn't be sceptics otherwise. --Thepm (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thepm, we aren't going to be replacing entire paragraphs. Please read and understand WP:LEAD. Reliable sources make it clear that the scientists were cleared in five separate inquiries. This is not a POV, it is a significant historical fact covered by our article and it needs to appear in the lead section. That the most serious of the allegations were rejected and that no evidence of scientific misconduct was found, is again, a significant historical fact that needs to be in the lead. Saying that public opinion was "impacted" is not the wrong word, and it is commonly used in American English. I realize that your use of Australian English might be different. Again, most of your concerns can be categorized as trivial objections. We need to focus on summarizing the most significant aspects of this topic in the lead with three to four paragraphs. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas, we may well replace entire paragraphs if that's what consensus calls for. I have read WP:LEAD on several occasions in the past. Thank you for referring me to it again it is most helpful. I do not believe it significant that there were five inquiries. I do not believe it significant that there were separate inquiries. I agree that the most serious of the allegations were rejected and that no evidence of scientific misconduct was found. I believe that this is sufficiently significant that it should appear in the lead section.
I am familiar with the non-standard usage of "impacted" in the sense of meaning "affected". I do not believe that the usage is widely accepted as correct, nor does the American dictionary Merriam Webster. Each of these points, in and of themselves are minor. I would argue that they are not trivial, although I thank you for referring me to the article that you created. I would further argue that collectively these objections address the fundamental ability of a disinterested reader to understand the article. That is neither trivial nor minor. It is a very significant matter. --Thepm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC).
I would be interested in seeing what work you've done on lead sections for GA or FA articles. If you haven't, could you at least point me in the direction of a GA or FA lead section you believe this article should emulate? I ask, because I don't think we are on the same page regarding WP:LEAD. You say that you do not believe it was significant that there were five nor separate inquiries. However, the reliable sources have covered this extensively, and these inquiries makeup a significant aspect of this topic. Since we write articles based on the sources, we must set aside our personal beliefs. I am curious, what do you believe are the most significant elements of this article? Do you have a good source to support it? Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not a particularly experienced editor of wikipedia. Do you feel that this precludes me from contributing? Is is relevant in some other way?
This is not a question of verifiability, it's a question of what is necessary for the lead section. The lead should briefly summarize the most important points of the article. That means that we need to make judgements about what are the most important points. Furthermore, if something can be said clearly in 20 words then using 25 is wrong. Consider the following two sentences which currently appear in the lead;

Subsequent inquiries by a House of Commons science committee and a UEA assessment panel and review found no evidence of any scientific misconduct. Major allegations against the scientists were rejected in five separate investigations

In what way do you feel the "summary of important points" is lost if the sentence reads;

Subsequent inquiries found no evidence of any scientific misconduct.

Do you feel that it's necessary to point out that there were five inquiries in the lead? Is this one of the "most important points" in the article? How would it change things from a readers point of view if there were three or seven inquiries? Is there some additional meaning added by "major allegations" that is not found in "scientific misconduct"? How is five separate investigations, different from five investigations? --Thepm (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Again with the trivial objections tactical strategy. You know, that kind of thing just doesn't go over well here, and I suggest you cut it out. Your inexperience does not preclude your from contributing, but once you've been pointed to the relevant information, you're supposed to adapt and overcome. Please also try to respond to questions. I've asked you to find me an article that you think would best represent the type of lead section you want to write. The only criteria is that it must be of GA or FA quality. What you will find when you look, is that there is no such lead section. The lead is supposed to represent the most important, significant aspects of the topic. Naming the inquiries in their home country is important, and the article devotes quite a bit of text to it. You appear to be trying to reduce the size of the lead section when in fact, we are in the process of expanding it. Please read WP:LEAD and review GA and FA-class articles to see the recommended length. In this instance, the reader should be able to come away from the lead section with a comprehensive understanding of the article. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, substantive criticism requires more than just applying a label. Calling something a trivial objection does not make it so and aggressive language like "I suggest you cut it out" is not helpful either.

You said; "Please also try to respond to questions. I've asked you to find me an article that you think would best represent the type of lead section you want to write." Do you understand that demanding that I find "an article that you think would best represent the type of lead section you want to write" is not a question? If you have a specific article in mind that you think would be helpful for comparative or illustrative purpose, feel free to post it here and explain how it is helpful. I will not be doing that as I think it better to examine this article on its merits rather than find out what other stuff exists.

Do you have any other questions that you feel are unanswered? Would you mind answering some of my questions? --Thepm (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The point I feel you've missed in my question, is that you are applying arbitrary standards to this lead section that no other high-quality aritcle has on Wikipedia. I thought that you might discover this for yourself by trying to find one that matches your requirements. If you will not try to find this type of hypothetical article, then I must ask you to stop trying to impose your personal criteria that neither policy nor guideline recommends. The fact that best practice does not support your criteria should be all that you need to know. I believe I have answered all of your questions, yet you have answered none of mine. If you feel there is a question that has not been answered, feel free to ask it, as long as you attempt to directly address my reply. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I have answered every question you have posed. In detail.
I have not yet seen you answer to even the most trivial question that I have asked you. For example in my immediately preceding post I asked whether you understood that you hadn't asked a question. You ignored this.
Do you feel that it's necessary to point out that there were five inquiries in the lead? Is this one of the "most important points" in the article? How would it change things from a readers point of view if there were three or seven inquiries? Is there some additional meaning added by "major allegations" that is not found in "scientific misconduct"? How is five separate investigations, different from five investigations? --Thepm (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Considering that the count has now jumped to six investigations that the so-called climate sceptics refuse to acknowledge, yes, I think it is necessary, important, and significant to point out that after six separate investigations, the climategate conspiracy theory (CCT) is still being pushed. This shows that no amount of reason can get through to these people and that they were never interested in the science, but rather in a pushing a political agenda. And yes, the sources support this conclusion. Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

FOIA source request

For some unknown reason, Tillman added "violations by the UEA of the UK Freedom of Information Act were credibly alleged" to the lead section. I am not aware of where our article says this in the body, nor am I aware of any current reliable source that makes this claim. Tillman, which source are you using to support this statement in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

V, please read through Information Commissioner's Office, which is a fearsome hairball, but here are the essentials: the ICO said there was "prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence." This refers to a couple of Phil Jones emails, asking colleagues to delete emails, which some apparently did. However the ICO was unable to prosecute because the 6-mo statute of limitations had expired. This section also details more violations re FOI requests by David Holland.
Anyway, I've put it back in. Please discuss here if you disagree. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You must not be familiar with WP:BRD. You should not have put it back until I had a chance to respond. First of all, referring to a primary source document in the lead section of a controversial article is not only bad practice, it isn't allowed. We use secondary sources for a reason, and you've been here long enough to know that is bad editing on your part. Second, the current article says nothing of the kind, and you will have to find secondary sources to support it. The next time you add material and it is removed, do not add it back until the discussion has finished. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This Public opinion on climate change? 99.181.137.98 (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
[reply to V.] I'm thoroughly confused. The lede bit I added is entirely unreferenced, except (by inference) to the article section I referred you to. Which section discusses the ICO actions in mind-numbing detail, albett almost unreadably. If you want secondary refs to the ICO, we can add them, but we are talking an official govt doc here, and there are plenty of others cited in this article, which you can chase too if you like. Are you trying to say that the ICO didn't say what they said??
Anyway, I haven't actually added the FOIA stuff back yet, and won't until the discussion is finished. But it seems very clear-cut to me. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's make this easy for everyone: which current secondary source says or suggests that ""violations by the UEA of the UK Freedom of Information Act were credibly alleged"? Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
We shouldn't say "credibly alleged" as that would give our support to allegations, most of which were unfounded. In particular, no data was deleted and "sceptics" were asking for working copies of data held elsewhere, so asking in the wrong place and creating hassle.
One specific issue centred on Holland's demands for emails between scientists discussing IPCC work, not necessarily something that would be expected to be in the public domain. A misleading informal statement was made to the press and widely misrepresented. The final ICO finding was that the UEA was required to improve its procedures, and the section of the act allowing criminal prosecutions of individuals was time-lapsed so had not been investigated though the ICO felt that email[s] at first sight (prima facie) were evidence.
Will aim to put together a summary of the current complex statement on these lines. . . dave souza, talk 09:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
"Credibly alleged" is a conclusion, even if any rational person who read only press release and UEA disclaimers would come to the same conclusion. However, Dave has it right, here, except that the alleged violations, which prosecution would have been time-barred, still have not been investigated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"Manufactured controversy"

Viriditas put in some old damage-control stuff calling Climategate a "manufactured controversy," etc. This is all badly out-of-date, imo, and doesn't belong in the lede. It's clear to me and to the many RS's in the article (& to be added) that CRU, at the very least, violated the UK FOIA repeatedly, per the UK ICO, and repeatedly obstructed legitimate requests for data. When this was exposed via the Climategate emails (etc.), the CRU & climate science lost credibility in the eyes of the public, per the Yale study I recently added & the recent Gallup poll results, still to be added -- see above. Accordingly I have removed this material from the lede.

Note that V's add is indeed from reputable sources, so probably still appropriate in the body of the aticle, but not the lede, imo. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please take a moment to read the article you are commenting about. I did not add any "old damage-control stuff". This is all notable, significant material in our article that needs to be represented in the lead section. There is nothing about it "out-of-date", nor does that statement make any sense. Your justification for removal isn't supported by your comments above. Perhaps you would like to explain why you removed this material with an actual argument, in which case I will reply to it. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag

I have placed a {{WP:POV}} tag on the article as the lead now has a specific bias (as opposed to being merely unreadable). The final para;

Analysis of the release of the documents and the widely published accusations against the scientists in the media was called a "manufactured controversy" by The New York Times; Newsweek described it as "highly orchestrated" with journalists raising concerns about the media's prominent coverage of the allegations against the scientists but not their resultant exoneration.

will need to be referenced and probably means we will need to include criticisms of the science community (notably the FOIA objections).

The sentence

Climate sceptics criticized the investigations and were unconvinced by the findings; public opinion was polarized and sharply divided along party lines.

will need to clarify "party lines" and will again need to be referenced. It will also need to explain why only "climate sceptics" were unconvinced, but "public opinion" was "polarized".

Note that my preference is for a simpler, unreferenced lead, but the changes that have been made in the last few days seem to suggest that it's not possible. -- Thepm (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thepm, please take a moment out of your day to read and understand WP:LEAD. All of the items you refer to as POV are already sourced in the current article:
  1. Climate sceptics criticized the investigations and were unconvinced by the findings[10][11]
  2. public opinion was polarized and sharply divided along party lines[12]
  3. called a "manufactured controversy" by The New York Times[13]
  4. Newsweek described it as "highly orchestrated"[14]
  5. journalists raising concerns about the media's prominent coverage of the allegations against the scientists but not their resultant exoneration[15][16]
Please read the article. As for your claim that we will need to include criticisms of the science community, have you had a chance to read the lead section, where those criticisms already appear? As for you suggestion that we include FOIA objections, you must have missed my query posted above this thread: Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#FOIA_source_request Please answer those questions. FYI... adding a POV tag to information that is clearly already sourced in the article while maintaining that it is not could be seen as disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so I can't add stuff back that's in dispute, but YOU can? Except that I didn't actually do it?
I strongly suggest you self-revert, and, as you so recently suggested, "The next time you add material and it is removed, do not add it back until the discussion has finished." --Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC). Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I've asked you for a secondary source in the above section. I will personally add back in your unsourced addition when you provide that secondary source. Unsourced material may be removed at any time. I looked through the current article and did not see a secondary source that supports the material you added. You claimed you sourced it from a primary which is not allowed in controversial articles. I will be happy to add back in text you find reasonable. Look at the current article and its sources and construct a sentence based on those sources, and I will add it back for you. You've made a number of bizarre justifications for your reverts, such as that the material is "out of date" (no evidence for such a strange claim) or that it is in dispute (I've repeatedly asked for someone to verbalize this dispute; it amounts to "I don't like it" which isn't valid). Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I support the addition of the POV tag, as the lead is now very biased (again). Additional problems than those discussed above include:
  1. over emphasis on the hack. "copied without permission" is redundant, in that lack of permission is implied in the notion of a breached server. It's also just bad style, as it violates the principle of economy of expression (use the fewest number of words to get a point across).
  2. "Climate skeptic blogs circulated allegations". Again, just not true. All blogs picked up the allegations, and some very pro-AGW commentators also made the same 'allegations', e.g. George Monbiot. Then there were all the commentators like Roger Pielke Jr., Eduardo Zorita, Mike Hulme, Judith Curry, and others who said the same sorts of things and were not skeptics.
  3. "Two weeks after the event, global climate talks began at the Copenhagen Summit amidst the background of the controversy." This sentence has no relevance to the article, although it is probably intended to communicate to the reader the POV that Climategate was probably designed to derail Copanhagen.
  4. 'public opinion was polarized and sharply divided along party lines'. Aside from the ambiguity (i.e. when was public opinion divide along party lines? Along which party lines? Labour vs the Tories? Or the Republicans vs the Democrats? Where? According to which poll?), it is in any case of no relevance to the article, even if it happens to be true.
  5. Finally, the general tone throughout is that of an outraged partisan, rather than an objective reporter of facts.
Accordingly, the POV label should remain. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I've added the POV tag back in as a charitable gesture, but I don't personally believe it is needed nor do I see the lead as biased. I also haven't seen any arguments that demonstrate this so-called bias. All I see is "I don't like it". Please show the bias in your response.
  1. There is no "over emphasis" on the hack, nor is it implied or redundant; one can breach a server without copying files to other sites. These are two separate actions and they are significant enough to include in the lead. Readability, context, and precision always trump "economy of expression". Sometimes less is more, but not always. In the case of a lead section, we need to mention the most important elements. That the server was breached and the data uploaded and distributed without permission is an acceptable description.
  2. It sounds like you are challenging the historical narrative that "climate skeptic blogs circulated allegations". We generally go from the sources, not from our own personal beliefs. If you have a particular source that denies this, let's see it. As far as I can tell, this statement is accurate per Revkin (2009), Webster (2009) and all the other sources in the article. That "climate-change sceptics in the West seized on the emails as evidence that the books were being cooked by the global-warming lobby"[17] is part of the historical narrative. I'm not sure what you are objecting to here, if anything. Pretty much every reliable source on the subject implicates climate sceptic blogs as disseminating links and spreading the story. This is not in dispute by anyone except you.
  3. The historical context of Copenhagen and the impact of the controversy on the conference is already in the article. Per the secondary sources, this is a significant POV. The current article (and lead) fails to mention that "the release of hacked emails and documents came just months after climate change sceptics had filed more than 50 freedom of information requests querying the CRU's refusal to release of raw data and program code during the summer."[18] So we need more backstory in the article, possibly more in the lead. That there was a significant interplay between the climategate controversy and Copenhagen is represented in the sources.
  4. That public opinion was polarized and divided along party lines is represented in the RS.[19] This was previously pointed out above, but like most of my other replies, you continue to ignore them and repeat your questions. This is generally described as "tendentious". It is entirely relevant and, IMO, one of the most important aspects of this topic; namely, that this controversy had nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics and the attempt to sway public opinion. The sources are starting to show this is indeed true.
  5. I've read the article through and through and can't really detect any tone, let alone that of an "outraged partisan". What I do detect is a jumbled hodgepodge of irrelevant recentism and too many quotes, and a lack of narrative structure drawing the reader in and keeping them interested. The article needs to be rewritten, but not for the reasons you suggest.
Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
V,
  1. are you saying that a reader could otherwise come away with the impression that despite the fact that the server was breached, the hackers may have had permission to copy the data to the internet? I say that is absurd, and no sane reader needs to be repeatedly told that this and that was done without permission. Unfortunately, all the extra words add is a bias.
  2. Are you denying that George Monbiot made some of the earliest accusations and that he is not a skeptic? If not, why are you presenting something as fact that you must know is not true?
  3. Do you understand the difference between reliably sourced opinions and facts? Since the identity of the hackers (if they were hackers) has never been determined, we know precisely nothing at all for certain about their motivations. The possibility that the timing was completely coincidental, while unlikely, is still completely open. And even if the historical context is clear in the article, I shouldn't need to read the whole article to figure out why you're telling me something in the lead.
  4. You have ignored my point about the ambiguity = bad writing. I said, even if true it is ambiguous. You then state the POV you are trying to write in the article, viz. "IMO, one of the most important aspects of this topic; namely, that this controversy had nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics and the attempt to sway public opinion. The sources are starting to show this is indeed true." The sources will say whatever you want them to, V, if you only pick the sources that fit your POV. Again, do you understand the difference between a reliably sourced opinion and a fact? You seem to think that if enough sources state the same opinion, that opinion becomes a fact in Wikipedia. That is not correct
  5. I'll leave the tone alone for the moment.
Alex Harvey (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that breaching a server and releasing the files on the internet without permission are two different steps. You seem to think they are the same. They are not and the sources bear that out.
  2. How am I supposed to deny something that I have not addressed? Are you claiming that the stories were not initially circulated by climate sceptics? Is that what our article currently says or not? Is that what the sources say or not? Is it true that Watts Up With That? broke the story? Yes or no? True or false: "...self-proclaimed sceptic bloggers started to spread the e-mails across the internet..."[20]
  3. We have plenty of sources discussing "Copenhagen" and "climategate".[21] This is not in dispute by anyone or any source. Why do you object to its placement in the lead? Do you require more sources to review? What is it about the climate conference that confuses you? In a previous version (now removed for no good reason) I wrote, "Two weeks later, global climate talks began at the Copenhagen Summit amidst the background of a swirling media controversy with climate scientists under close scrutiny." What part of this does not make sense to you? Why not?
  4. What ambiguity are you talking about? That this was a political controversy and not a scientific controversy is supported by RS. The science on climate change has not been impacted in any way. The politics of climate change has had a measurable impact on public opinion. This represents the fundamental outcome of this topic. However, what do you make of the fact that bloggers and websites such as "Texas GOP Vote", are still claiming as of 2011, that climate scientists "were caught manipulating data"?[22] Should we represent fringe opinions that are completely odds with reality? Is that what you are advocating, Alex? What about so-called "think tanks" like the Institute of Public Affairs, who claim that "these emails describe attempts to subvert the peer-review process, refusal to make data available to journals, attempts to manipulate the editorial stance of journals, attempts to avoid releasing data following freedom of information requests, rejoicing at the deaths of opponents, and manipulation of results."[23] Or what about when the Institute of Public Affairs says, "If the IPCC is no longer able to rely on the CRU, it will be substantially less assured. With what we have so far learnt from the CRU emails and documents, we can no longer be as confident in the IPCC-or, indeed, the popular view that there is a ‘consensus' on climate change." Hooray! Can everyone name that fallacy?
Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Viriditas, three editors disagree with you. Perhaps you might reflect on what this could mean.

  1. I don't hold a strong view on the "server breached" and "without permission" point. It does seem to me that "server breached" is redundant.
  2. The Revkin article that you refer to is dated 20 November. This article itself refutes your suggestion that there was some sort of linearity in the emails being first publicised by sceptic blogs and then being "picked up" by the "traditional media". The story broke across all media forms with a day or two.
  3. Copenhagen
    1. The fact that something is in the article does not automatically mean it should be in the lead. The lead is a summary. That means that many things that are in the article will not be in the lead. This makes your first point irrelevant.
    2. Your second point is not terribly clear, but it appears that you are positing some sort of conspiracy. If so, you will be needing more than just flowery opinion pieces.
  4. Your comment that "public opinion was polarised along party lines" is supported by a reference to a "Working Paper, Subject to Revision". I would be hesitant to count it as an RS just on that basis. Beyond the fact that it remains a "working paper' it also appears to be a primary source. Beyond that, even if your source is acceptable, it only appears to suggest that "These survey results strongly suggest that Climategate deepened and perhaps solidified the prior observed declines in public beliefs that global warming is happening" (emphasis is mine). I don't see how that can be considered sufficiently inportant for the lead.
    1. Nobody is ignoring your replies. They are creating a great deal of conversation. Continuing to level accusations of "tendentious editing" at editors operating in good faith is not helpful.
  5. The article is in dreadful shape. It is written very poorly. We need to work toward making it more readable.

--Thepm (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  1. Thepm, showing up and saying "I disagree" isn't a valid form of disagreement on Wikipedia. I've pointed this out to you in previous sections. I see mostly various opinions offered, relying on arguments to avoid in discussions. Some editors have offered points that are worthy of further discussion, in which case I will participate. But, in order for a valid disagreement to occur, there is a procedure you have to follow, and I've pointed you in this direction above: you need to show how the content does not meet specific criteria, guidelines or policies. If you can't do that, then you don't have a disagreement that needs to be discussed on the talk page. Objecting for the sake of objecting is called "I don't like it", and isn't a valid form of discourse for Wikipedia. Furthermore, these discussions show a tendentious atmosphere: a question is asked, a response is given, and the response is ignored and the same question is asked again. Not acceptable.
  2. Server breached and the files uploaded around the internet without permission is not redundant. This was adequately explained above. You can have one without the other. I have not commented on Revkin other than to note that it is used as a source in the current article. I do not see anything contradictory about it or the material it supposedly represents. This article makes it clear that the sceptic blogs circulated the story first and then the traditional media picked it up. If you require more sources on this point besides the ones already in use in the article, I'm sure they can be found. I get the feeling, however, that you are trying to waste my time, because this is based on the timeline. Nobody disputes this chronology. In fact, I must ask, what exactly is your dispute? Are you saying this is inaccurate? How is it inaccurate? Again, this sounds like objecting for the sake of objecting. I don't see how Revkin (or anyone else for that matter) shows otherwise. If you requesting more sourcing, that's fine.
  3. The Copenhagen material is relevant to the context of the controversy,[24][25][26] and the controversy had a major impact on the conference and the outcome.[27][28] There are literally hundreds of sources about the impact of climategate on Copenhagen. This is not my opinion but that of sources in the article. Please be more clear on what you mean by a conspiracy. A conspiracy by whom? Again, this is a historical fact that climate scientists were besieged in the media during the Copenhagen conference because of this controversy. Was the timing coincidental? Perhaps, but we need to go on the sources. Given the sheer number of sources, perhaps you should be clear as to why this is not appropriate in the lead.
  4. That public opinion was polarized on this topic is supported by sources. That it was polarized among party lines is also supported by many sources. Is this working paper a reliable primary source? Yes. Is it supported by secondary sources? Yes.[29][30] Is it supported by other sources? Yes.[31][32][33][34] That public opinion was polarized on this issue isn't even a question. It is an established fact. For our purposes, this working paper is not just a reliable source, it is an uncontested reliable source. In any case, you claim that this is not sufficiently inportant for the lead, however, a closer examination shows that it is most likely the most important aspect of this article. That more sources are requested is acceptable. That you continue to dismiss things because you simply don't like them, is not.
  5. In order for this article to be improved, editors need to know how to improve it. Deleting what you personally disagree with isn't a solution.
Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Am kinda busy with other things at present, so can't contribute much for the moment.
A couple of concerns, while plenty of sources discussed the timing in relation to Copenhagen and suggested it was no coincidence, in the outcome it appears to have had very little influence on the conference which was already dealing with significant tensions. ref. Pearce at least, as I recall.
That public opinion was polarised to the extent the public was interested is clear, and while opinion among those most interested in the topic remains polarised on the same lines that it was before the incident, public interest waned pretty quickly. In the extremely polarised context of U.S. politics it remains a dog-whistle point for the teapartyish right, but as usual their views reflect various issues and we must not imply that they can be solely attributed to the CRU emails.
So, questionable but probably very little influence in the UK, more of an issue in the U.S. and Canada in my opinion. Reliable source needed. Very little influence in the findings of science, has increased the pressure to release all sorts of info such as computer programs and emails between scientists to the public, in addition to data and methods which were always available.
Reorganising the article is going to be worthwhile, preferably separating out the various opinions and inquiries from examination of specific issues and particularly notable emails, which should show all the aspects in context rather than having accusations in one section and inquiry findings in another section, which at present tends to create a WP:LAYOUT problem.
Hope to assist more in the reasonably near future. . . dave souza, talk 09:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Public opinion in the U.S. Canada and Australia was definitely impacted. A measurable change was also recorded in Norway and the U.K.[35] As for the U.S. the Yale/GMU report found that climategate had "a significant effect on public beliefs in global warming and trust in scientists".[36] (see also: [37]) In other words, this effect was solely attributed to the CRU emails (or more precisely, as I will argue later, by the media coverage of the e-mails). Pearce's comments were made while speculating about who might have been behind climategate. He said it did not directly influence negotiations, which is true. But he did not deny that the "timing just before that event ensured maximum publicity". But that is not my point. My point is that we have source after source (hundreds in fact) about the controversy that received its maximum coverage during Copenhagen, with the UN and individual climate scientists commenting on both, and with media outlets covering both at the same time. In fact, you can go back and do a search on the Copenhagen conference. Most of those news articles are about climategate. The media did not separate the two. Copenhagen is virtually inseparable from this topic. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Cherry picking, again

Why remove a Reason article (or editorial; I haven't checked) while including a Nature editorial? Seems cherry-picking, unless some reliable sources comment on the reliability or accuracy of the specific material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are asking the wrong question. When I create articles and add sources, I always ask, how does this source improve the coverage of the topic? If I can answer that in a way that sets that source apart from another, and allows me to compare the quality of it's coverage with others of similar or better quality, it allows me to choose how to source, if at all. This is not cherry picking, but the process of evaluation, which is required when using any source on Wikipedia. Simply put, all sources are not the same, and all have different aspects of reliability. And just because one source is reliable in one instance does not mean it is reliable in all. More importantly, we do not have to automatically include any source, and it is the responsibility of the editor wanting to add it to show why it is necessary. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how the Nature editorial is reliable (as used; for a statement of "fact", rather than of the opinions of the authors or editorial staff, in general). In fact, as I don't see how it adds to the article, even if it were a reliable source, I'm going to remove it and the material sourced to it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Nature is a good and reliable source for mainstream scientific views, the majority view in relation to this topic as science. Their editorial discusses their findings of fact having investigated the matter, and should have significant weight. Please don't edit war to remove it. What significance does political commentary by a Libertanian magazine have for this topic? We've already got sceptical views from more prominent publications such as the WSJ, and Reason wasn't adding anything distinctive or particularly significant. . dave souza, talk 19:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Reason doesn't have anything to add, even if the reference is to an article, rather than a commentary.
However, I do not agree that an an editorial in Nature is necessarily a good source for mainstream scientific views. Even if included, all the assertions need to be attributed to that editorial, not asserted as fact or mainstream opinion.
As the reference only had a {{doi}} tag, not issue number, date, or page number(s), I couldn't check it to rewrite it, so I removed it. If properly written to attribute everything to the editorial opinion, it's marginally usable, although should probably be at the end of the paragraph, rather than the beginning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 20:44, 19 April 2011
While the other points followed on from an explicit statement that this was their view, I take the point about making it clear that all the views are to be attributed to Nature so have revised the wording accordingly. Don't know how you were having problems with the doi tag, that's automatically expanded and should read "Climatologists under pressure". Nature 462 (7273): 545–200. 2009. doi:10.1038/462545a. PMID 19956212. Even before such references expand, you can normally click on the doi number for sight of the publication. You don't seem to grasp the significance of editors in scientific journals, the editorial opinion clearly based on their examination of the emails has considerably more weight in science than the opinions or assessments of journalists in newspapers or magazines. . dave souza, talk 22:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, I do recognize the significance of editors in scientific journals. By the nature of the field, their statements are specifically allowed as references by WP:SPS, unless the material is covered by WP:BLP. However, "denialists' conspiracy theories" is a WP:BLP violation, unless properly sourced to a peer-reviewed or editorially-reviewed paper. (An "editorial" is not "editorially reviewed", by our definitions.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you stretch BLP beyond its breaking point here. Which concrete LP is affected? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of scientific misconduct

The lede says, "... allegations were made that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community." Yet when I glanced over the article quickly I wasn't able to find enough material to justify including this sentence. What section is devoted to these allegations?

Anyway, I think we should not take the one-sided view that the investigations exonerated the CRU folks and proved the allegations false. Rather, we should be neutral:

  • List the allegations (along with who made them, and the reasons they gave)
  • List the rebuttals, e.g., investigations that examined those allegations or deemed them unworthy of examination

I don't see how there can be a "controversy" if only one side is covered. Doesn't Wikipedia:NPOV tell us to represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources?" --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

allegations were made that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community

We've just discussed this to death in the subsection above this one, and the concensus lead has just been implemented an hour or so after your edit here, so hopefully the new lead is to your satisfaction :) --almightybob (pray) 17:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
A case of might makes right! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah no no, I didn't mean "we have concensus on the new lead so shut up and deal with it", I meant "you might not have seen the lead we've arrived at by concensus since it wasn't implemented in the article until after you posted, so hopefully we've already addressed any issues you had with the old lead, but if not please say so" :) Although concensus is inherently a matter of majority, so I suppose yes, might does (usually) make right in a way :) --almightybob (pray) 20:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually I figured out most of that already. I was just making a pun on your name, a 'poor' attempt at humor. William C and I used to trade jokes like that in the old dies (like 6 years ago ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The article clearly justifies and represents the allegations. It may be your opinion that the investigation did not exonerate CRU and proved the allegations false, but that is a demonstrable fact. Being neutral does not mean giving undue weight to fringe opinions like Conservapedia does over at their article on Climategate. Ed, do you think Wikipedia's article should look more like Conservapedia's? Yes or no, please. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The investigations did not exactly "exonerate" CRU nor "proved [all of] the allegations false". They substantially exonerated the scientists, but there were some allegations which were not discussed by any of the 6 investigations. Even among those allegations discussed, UEA (but not necessary CRU) and some the individual scientists' actions were criticised in the reports, and the allegation of misuse of statistics qualifies as "not proven true" rather than "proven false". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reboot Lede rewrite: start from consensus

The last version of the lede with broad consensus was by Dave Souza, diff, 23 April 2011:

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") began on 19 November 2009 when thousands of emails and computer files from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were made public.
There was immediate controversy over allegations that the emails revealed malpractice within the climate science community. Subsequent inquiries found no evidence of scientific misconduct.

Proposed lede rewrite

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") began on 19 November 2009 when thousands of emails and computer files were released taken without authorization from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and widely distributed on the Internet.
There was immediate controversy over allegations that the emails revealed professional malpractice within the climate science community. Subsequent inquiries by a House of Commons science committee and two UEA-sponsored panels found no evidence of scientific misconduct. However, the university investigations were widely criticized, and public confidence in climate science was diminished.


I would urge interested editors to post proposed changes to the lede here and build consensus for their proposals on the talk page, rather than editing the article directly. This is always good practice in editing controversial articles, and they don't get more controversial than this.

I sympathize with editors who've criticized the first rewrite as too bare-bones, but I feel strongly that it's better to work up from the last consensus version. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph - mostly happy with it, except for "released without authorization". That phrase implies they were released by an insider, when the police reports stated it was not an inside whistleblower but an outside hack. I'm trying to think of an alternate phrasing - will come back to that.
Second paragraph - were the university investigations widely criticized in mainstream media, or just by climate skeptics? Because if it's the latter, that's like saying evolution is widely criticized because of Answers in Genesis. In other words, it's undue weight and possibly fringe.
Also, the phrase "UEA-sponsored" bothers me. I do see where you're going, in that both the Russell report and the Oxburgh report/Science Assessment Panel were set up by the UEA, but "sponsored" suggests the UEA had control over the outcome of these investigations. --almightybob (pray) 21:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Bob: I'd welcome a rephrase, but to me "released without authorization" seems reasonably neutral -- though I appreciate your point. As you know, hack vs leak has been a very contentious issue here. Do we agree that the present circumlocution,
"...a server was breached at the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and thousands of emails and computer files were uploaded and copied without permission to numerous locations across the Internet."
--is unacceptably clunky? [PS, sub "taken without authorization", better? --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)]
I struck "widely", and a sub would be good. Here are some RS criticisms and expert opinions:
  • WSJ: "The Muir Russell report "amounts to a 160-page evasion of the real issues."
  • The Atlantic, column by Clive Crook re the various CG inquiries: "The climate-science establishment ... seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause."
  • Hiding the Decline by Judith Curry: "There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. ... The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea."
"It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest."
  • Physicist Richard A. Muller has strongly criticized "hide the decline"; see here for a 5-minute clip from a video lecture. Muller remarks that he was misled by Jones's WMO chart. A transcript would be nice... and we'd need a non-annotated copy to use as a ref here.
RE: "UEA-sponsored". I suppose this is a reaction (overeaction?) to the "independent" tag we often see. Critics have questioned the degree of independence these panels actually had. See, for example, this recent Telegraph article on Lord Oxburgh's undisclosed conflict of interest re his panel. McIntyre has also documented what he sees as the lack of due diligence in the UEA inquiries.
Feel free to mark up my thing, or better, post your own! Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This Muller: Talk:Global_warming_controversy#Per_Talk:Global_warming.23Add_LA_Times_resources_..., Talk:Global_warming#Add_LA_Times_resources, Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Add_LA_Times_resources, with this potentially related Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Add_Opposition_to_a_nationwide_trading_system_to_curb_carbon_emission_was_a_successful_2010_political_platform_point_for_Tea_Party_groups_and_their_financers_in_fossil_fuel_industries..27 ? 99.119.129.3 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This R.A.Muller ... Talk:Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family#Add_http:.2F.2Farticles.latimes.com.2F2011.2Ffeb.2F06.2Fnation.2Fla-na-koch-brothers-20110206_by_Tom_Hamburger.2C_Kathleen_Hennessey_and_Neela_Banerjee.2C_Los_Angeles_Times ? 99.19.41.7 (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
LA Times says "... physicist Richard Muller..." and the image looks the same, so yes. 99.56.123.165 (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Pete: Agreed re: unacceptably clunky. Taken is an improvement, and admittedly about the only reasonable alternative I could think of. I'll keep trying to think of a better way of phrasing it, but taken is fine for now.
Unfortunately I don't have time to read through those RS's (exam tomorrow and Thursday :S) so I'll leave this in your capable hands for now. I do prefer the striking of "widely". AT a glance through the Telegraph article, I'm confused as to how publicly funded by taxpayer = conflict of interest with the UEA. But of course we have to go by what the RS's say, not my personal opinion and OR.
Anyway, studying beckons. I'll try to revisit this in a couple of days or so. --almightybob (pray) 08:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Clunky or not, it appears more informative and accurate than other proposals.
The opinion pieces in the WSJ is blatantly partisan, the Atlantic opinion piece looks more reasonable as a July 2010 reaction, but its arguments are significantly superseded by more recent analysis.
<Judy Curry is indeed easily misled, and she has got it wrong about TAR AR4. As she notes at the start of her blog post, she's no expert on paleoclimate, so not a suitable source.
We can and should ignore Stephen McIntyre's blog, in the linked example going on about a 12 year old paper. Much better sourcing needed for any mention.
The Telegraph is making allegations about lobbyists and trying to drag Oxburgh into it, without substantiation this looks premature and doubtful as an issue. The "so-called "Climategate emails"" are given an incidental mention, but are hardly the focus of the piece.
And, as discussed above, there's no clear indication that public confidence was significantly affected by this affair rather than by economic woes and the lack of progress toward global climate policy. A balanced view of that is needed in the article, before putting it in the lead. . . dave souza, talk 11:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been away over the weekend, and having returned, I find all that good work we'd done has been undone, and I suspect it will not be too long before we get back the same bloat we had when we started.

  1. lead is defining "climategate" in terms of the date it started on, rather than what it actually is, again.
  2. too much emphasis on a hack: "... when a server was breached ..." "... copied without permission to numerous locations across the Internet". The reader, presumably, would have already got the point if we'd simply said, "unauthorised release".
  3. "first began to circulate in climate sceptic blogs and then later in the traditional media". As the reader, I want to ask, and your point is? Well, whatever the point is, there is a POV here.
  4. "Subsequent inquiries by a House of Commons science committee and a UEA assessment panel and independent review, cleared the scientists and found no evidence of scientific misconduct." Too much information about the inquiries I think, and too much about clearing the scientists. "Cleared the scientists" is all it takes for the reader to get the point.
  5. "Serious allegations against climate scientists by climate sceptics were rejected by five separate investigations, but these did not convince climate skeptics." This is hopelessly biased... "Did not convince the STUPID SKEPTICS!!!!" is the subtext... Aside from that, it's original research, and rather simplistic, i.e. what of skeptics who presumably were convinced?
  6. "The Columbia Journalism Review criticised the mainstream media for covering the initial controversy but failing to cover the results of the investigations." If this is relevant, it belongs elsewhere in the article, probably in a controversy section.

Alex Harvey (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In reply to your six points:
  1. The lead is not defining the topic in terms of the date it began. This is simply the encyclopedic convention for describing controversies and events. If you object to putting this event in a chronological, historical context like every other encyclopedia article, you will have to do a better job at explaining your objection.
  2. There is not "too much emphasis on a hack". Reliable sources are in unanimous agreement that the servers were breached and the material was copied without permission to the internet. In fact, this significant aspect of the article is summarized from the body, as stipulated by WP:LEAD. Please take a moment to read the guideline. No good argument for removing this from the lead section has ever been offered.
  3. It is a historical fact supported by reliable sources that the material was uploaded and circulated by climate sceptic blogs and later made it to major media outlets. This significant fact is summarized from the body of the article per WP:LEAD. There is nothing "POV" about it. I'm guessing that you are using a different definition of the term "POV" than we use on Wikipedia.
  4. The lead contains too little, not too much information about the inquiries, and the summary of significant historical reports and results regarding the inquiries is appropriate per WP:LEAD. When dealing with BLP's and serious allegations of misconduct it is never "too much" to indicate innocence and resolution. In fact, the very linking of scientific misconduct in the preceding paragraph is intentionally misleading the reader, and I will deal with that in a separate thread. It should not be linked at all.
  5. There is nothing "biased" about summarizing the most significant aspects of our article in the lead section. That is what we do per WP:LEAD. That climate sceptics made serious allegations is a significant historical fact. That the most serious of these allegations were rejected by five separate investigations is a significant historical fact. However, I disagree with Dave's insertion of "these did not convince climate skeptics", and I have addressed this in the above threaded section titled about the Gallup poll. It is not OR, however, as there is significant support for more precise wording in the previous version, in the current article, and in additional sources offered above. Further discussion is welcome in the above section.
  6. Criticism by the Columbia Journalism Review is certainly relevant, as this subject centers around a media-driven controversy. That the media was criticized for their role in propagating this dispute is a significant historical fact. It is relevant, and is included in the lead because it already appears in the body. Please read WP:LEAD
Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
V, I regret that discussing this further is not likely to be productive. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
That the mainstream media is now beating itself up for not being supportive enough of the AGW believers is such a joke. For the first few weeks of the scandal, all the MSM coverage was along the lines of, "Who did this terrible hacking and compromised the privacy the noble scientists?" The investigations are an embarrassment. They just asked the people who were accused for their side of the story and whatever they said became the committee's report. No other witness were interviewed. The media is doing these people a favor by not covering the investigations. Fortunately, in this modern era of blogs the media cartel no longer controls access to information. Kauffner (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, Inhofe and Palin know more about climate science than the experts. Let's all look to them for guidance. We should model this article on Conservapedia's version, right? Viriditas (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
LOL  :-P 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
After the last midterm and the recent unanimous Supreme Court decision, it's clear that this issue has no future politically. Even the environmental movement is moving on to anti-nuclear activity. If all the campaign donations from the financial industry in the last couple of election cycles wasn't enough to pass cap and trade, it isn't going to happen. So the world is burning up, we're all going to die, and nobody cares. What a depressing doctrine to teach to our children. Kauffner (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that changes to the lead in recent times have improved its readability or the likelihood that it will prove useful for a disinterested reader. The first sentence is 50 words long, we've now included comment on the Copenhagen Summit in the first para and we are describing public opinion as "impacted". We talk about "five separate investigations", presumably to distinguish them from the "five impacted investigations", but there is no hint in the article proper of which five they might be. We have scientists, being "taken to task" and the traditional media "picking up the story" only after checking the "Climate sceptic blogs".

Personally, I believe that we are best served to revert to "Revision as of 02:28, 24 April 2011 by Dave souza" as the last consensus version. We can then build consensus for any further changes here on the talk page. --Thepm (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I will provide you a direct, numbered response to each one of your points. Feel free to refer to the numbers in your subsequent reply:
  1. The fallacy of trivial objections remains your sole argument against my changes. On Wikipedia, we avoid these types of arguments and instead focus solely on how material does or does not adhere to specific criteria, guidelines or policies. In short, your comments are generally categorized as "I don't like it", and we dismiss those types of arguments when we try and determine consensus or how to improve an article. Please try to formulate your objection along the lines I outlined.
  2. The length of the lead section is well below the recommended length set out by WP:LEAD. The article is now at about 46 kB (47155 characters) and is composed of 7487 words. Per Wikipedia:LEAD#Length, three or four paragraphs are acceptable for this article. Currently, the lead section is only made up of 1399 characters, or 203 words. This is currently an acceptable (and some would argue too short) of length for this article.
  3. Including the mention of Copenhagen in the lead provides significant historical context to the article and is used in this way by reliable sources that summarize the topic. It also appears in the body of the article. The description about public opinion is also a significant (the most IMO) aspect of this topic and is also covered in the body (Webster 2009; Jonsson 2010; many more including Baker 2010 just below...) Additionally, you may be interested in reviewing the working paper by Leiserowitz et al. (2010), "Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust".[38] More sources can be offered if you are interested, but the significance and validity of this statement is not in dispute.
  4. The lead mentions there were five separate investigations that cleared the scientists.[39] These are counted as 1) Penn State's inquiry 2) House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee 3) Royal Society 4) University of East Anglia (Russell), and 5) U.S. Inspector General of the Department of Commerce.[40] It appears that the "Responses" section needs to be updated to reflect this outcome, as it currently repeats outdated information that says Inhofe "also planned to demand an inquiry". This investigation was made by request of Inhofe.[41] The Penns State inquiry also needs to be updated and moved from the "Other responses" section. Further, please read and understand Wikipedia:LEAD#Relative_emphasis. Items can appear in the lead that are not yet in the body of the article: "This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body: in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text."
  5. Criticism of the scientists being taken to task is reflected by Fred Pearce's statement in the body, a statement reflected by many, many sources (including Baker 2010 just offered above). That the story made its way from climate sceptic blogs to the mainstream isn't in dispute and is a summary of the timeline section. Again, read WP:LEAD to see how all of this works.
Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thepm is correct. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he is. I did some patchwork, but it's still a far-from-satisfactory lede, imo. And isn't ever likely to end up well if we continue with random, ad-hoc edits. I tried to read some of the body of the text last night, specifically the FOIA section, and no ordinary reader would ever make heads or tails of this hairball. --Pete Tillman (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
For your elucidation: repeatedly claiming "X is correct", "yes, X is correct", "me too" and all the rest, is not an appropriate form of discussion on Wikipedia. The three of you may wish to familiarize yourself with how we discuss the improvement of Wikipedia articles over at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in discussions. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there is a serious error in point 4. The scientists were not "cleared". It's correct to say that no evidence was found of serious misconduct, and it might be correct to say that no evidence was found of scientific misconduct, but it's not correct to say that no evidence was found of misconduct by scientists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Six investigations

The number has now jumped from five to six investigations:

  1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
  2. Independent Climate Change Review
  3. International Science Assessment Panel
  4. Pennsylvania State University
  5. United States Environmental Protection Agency
  6. Department of Commerce

According to New Scientist (which only covers the first five investigations since the sixth was released four days after this article), "separate investigations into the e-mails...found that the allegations of serious misconduct and fraud were without basis...media coverage for these was rather muted compared with the months of speculation and accusation that followed the appearance of the e-mails. Indeed sceptics have continued to use the e-mails to try to undermine the reputations of climate researchers, and have simply rejected the findings of all of the inquiries."[42]Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This says nothing more than that allegations of serious misconduct and fraud were without basis, as indeed to all of the inquiries. Some people, e.g. me, George Monbiot, expect more of climate scientists than that they merely don't engage in outright fraud. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
(to Viriditas) That's weaker than I thought. You say that the investigations "found that the allegations of serious misconduct and fraud were without basis". That wouldn't eliminate a pervasive culture of minor misconduct, which I thought had been discredited by the investigations. If that's the best you can do, then we need to note that as a possibility. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Moving the goalposts, noted. The core, central tenets of the climategate conspiracy theory have been thoroughly and completely discredited by six separate investigations. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Which International Science Assessment Panel? 99.181.137.215 (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
@V: You're moving the goalposts. The scientists were not "cleared", or even "substantially cleared". You now only report that the investigations "found that the allegations of serious misconduct and fraud were without basis." Unless we can provide other sources, we cannot assert or imply that there isn't a pervasive pattern of minor misconduct. "Cleared" is absurd under those circumstances, even if it were reported by reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, reliable secondary sources have reported that the scientists were cleared and exonerated of all major/serious allegations. That is not in question by any reliable source. That they have since attempted to be more open and transparent with their data to avoid more conspiracy theories from being thrown at them has also been cited. This issue is no longer active. It is a dead topic that was conclusively proven to be without merit. That you and others wish to use Wikipedia to continue the war against climate science is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, the real issue is that V's source is actually just a blog, and the author is the notorious advocate, Bob Ward. It's better to read the actual inquiries, because it is very easy to show that they don't say what V et al. claim they say. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
What Independent Climate Change Review? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Bob Ward a "notorious advocate"? For one, he's one of the most respected voices on climate change journalism. For another, you're making serious allegations against a living person - please provide a high-quality reliable source for your claim, or retract it, per WP:BLP. Guettarda (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Climategate conspiracy theory (CCT)

After doing a few hours worth of research, it becomes evident that this entire subject is a failed conspiracy theory that was pushed, uncritically and without question, by the mainstream media. It is no different than aliens landing and abducting trailer trash, nor the claims of psychic palm readers on late night TV. It is garbage through and through. After close examination by a total of six separate investigations the so-called "controversy" vanished when the light of reason was shone upon it. As such, the topic must now be re-framed in this manner. This failed conspiracy theory claimed, in the words of Tim Rutten, "that huge numbers of British and American scientists...entered into a conspiracy to dupe the world on climate change." Nothing could be more absurd or ridiculous. This theory must be treated with the respect it deserves. Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I do believe we have now jumped the shark. --Thepm (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Reality is a bummer. Support move to Climategate conspiracy theory. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
And as long as you're not trying to have the article say this, and still retain objectivity enough to recognise that it is merely your opinion, and you still see there are others out there who aren't climate change skeptics, like George Monbiot, Andrew Revkin, Judith Curry, Eduardo Zorita, Hans von Storch, Mike Hulme, Michael Wallace, Roger Pielke Jr., and on and on and on, who would all strongly disagree with you and say that your opinion represents an extreme position, then everything should be fine. I'll assume you're kidding about the move proposal. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The climategate conspiracy theory was discredited by six separate investigations. Is there something you wanted to add to that? Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Since no such thing as a 'climategate conspiracy theory' was ever investigated, you can't really say it was 'discredited'. Meanwhile, do you think we should instead go back to observing WP:TPG? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
In the unlikely event that this section is not being WP:POINTed, only "wrongdoing" was (partially) investigated. (I say "partially", because (1) there was one particular item of alleged wrongdoing which was not reported as being investigated, and (2) only the violations of section 77 of the FOIA were investigated; there had been in the article a note that violation of another section of the FOIA was being investigated, and that investigation is not yet complete. We can't say (1) in the article unless a reliable source says it, but we can note it.) The fact of a "conspiracy" between climate scientists would not necessarily be "wrongdoing", and was not "discredited" by the investigations. That being said, I support a move to Climategate, as that's what it's called. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. That last falls under WP:DEADHORSE. I shouldn't have said that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, your response tells me you are not familiar with the topic or the sources. That this manufactured controversy is based on the climategate conspiracy theory is not in doubt by anyone. If you had followed this topic from day one or researched the older sources, you would find that this has always been a conspiracy from day one. This fact is not in question by anyone or any source. It is and always has been a conspiracy theory. Some assessments have even accused both sides of positing conspiracy theory. In any case, climate sceptics have been promoting this conspiracy theory for many years, with Frederick Seitz all the way back in 1996 using the editorial page in The Wall Street Journal to do it. Sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it? That science is a threat to the far right is an established fact.[43] That the "climategate" allegations are considered a conspiracy theory is an established fact.[44] That the proponents of the climategate conspiracy theory have been using the rhetoric of conspiracy theory from day one is an established fact. On November 20, 2009, James Delingpole wrote,

The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth...has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed...As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails...suggest: Conspiracy, collusion...manipulation of data...the most damaging revelations...are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause....The world is currently cooling...The so-called "sceptical" view...is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.

These are the core arguments of the climategate conspiracy theory, excepting the one about the climate denialists as a persecuted minority, which I will deal with later. These arguments are still being promoted after six investigations have discredited them. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an interesting take on the subject, but not ready for WP at the time, since I'm not aware of secondary sources supporting that terminology. There are certainly plenty of sources out there debunking the denialist tropes surrounding the data breach, but I don't think even any of those refer to it as a conspiracy theory. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It is supported by many, many secondary sources. I agree that it isn't ready yet, but when you sit down and spend some time looking through the sources, you find that "climategate" has always been a conspiracy theory and is nothing more than a variant on the global warming conspiracy theory theme. Here are just a few sources as a sample, but there are a lot more:
  • Ignore the unwarranted claims that hacked emails from the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the UK expose human-made climate change as a conspiracy. (Pearce, 2009, New Scientist)
  • "Climate change ‘sceptics’ have accused Professor Phil Jones of conspiring with his collaborators to manipulate climate data and the scientific literature..." (Goertzel 2010)
  • "The name [Climategate] refers to the immense conspiracy theory that became big news after computers at the University of East Anglia'a Climate Research Unit (CRU) were hacked last November, and more than a 1,000 confidential emails posted on the internet." (Venkatraman 2010)
  • "The use of terms such as 'Contragate', 'Cheriegate', 'Bloodgate' and now 'Climategate' evokes the 'Watergate' scandal. Watergate is a one-word shorthand for illegal and unethical attempts to suborn the political process (and a high-level conspiracy to cover it up)...the scandal [Climategate] the journalists and commentators were seeking to highlight was not the theft of personal documents, but an alleged conspiracy involving leading climate scientists." (Winterton 2010)
  • "In a year of record heat waves in Africa, freak snowstorms in America and epic flooding in Pakistan, the Fox network continued to dismiss climate change as nothing but a conspiracy by liberal scientists and Big Government...Fox News helped gin up a fake controversy by relentlessly hyping the "climategate" scandal -- even though independent investigations showed that nothing in the e-mails stolen from British climate researchers undercut scientific conclusions about global warming." (Goodell 2011)
I don't think anyone would disagree that the allegations made by climate sceptics about the CRU are virtually identical to those made in the global warming conspiracy theory article. I will be working on making this more clear with better sources in my user space. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
All good points, but let me make a different point. Did "Climategate" create any new conspiracy theories, or simply provide "evidence" to support existing ones? That's why we have an article on the Roswell UFO incident and not the the Roswell UFO conspiracy theory, because it's part of the broader UFO conspiracy theory. Climategate refers to a specific incident where something did in fact happen (a massive data breach), which was a gold mine to conspiracy theorists and foxnews, but a non-event for anyone with any understanding of how science works. Thus there is no "climategate conspiracy theory." Sailsbystars (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Maybe we should merge this article into the other one. If not, it should still be discussed there, as a subarticle. Hans Adler 13:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A move toward agreement

Hi folks. It would be a pity if all that research and all those keystrokes ended up going nowhere.

Sometimes others don't want to get involved. Well, this talk page has 255 watchers and none are weighing in.

One of the reasons they're silent might be that they'd have to read for an hour to figure out what the core arguments are. I'm having trouble figuring it out myself.

Considering that good judgement often comes from those who aren't in too deep, maybe if you spell out the basic sides of this whole thing in the simplest of terms, I, and others, can say what we think. With 255 watchers, what's the need for a proper RfC?

And by the way, if you check my contribs, you'll see that I have a good relationship with Viriditas. But that doesn't matter. I call 'em as I see 'em. Just ask Mbz1.

In fact, Mr. Rubin, who is on the other side of the fence from Viriditas, is someone I'm about to support. He's in an edit war over the number 62 of all things. Who would have thought one could edit war over a number. Anyway, spell it out if you like, as you would for a jury, and I, and perhaps others, will say what we think.

If you're near a settlement, don't bother. I don't want to get in the way. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you go back to this thread you'll see we were trying to rewrite the lead without the existing bias and that there was quite broad support for this. Indeed, we were making quite good progress. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Alex Harvey's recommendation. This major rewrite/condensation of the article lead took place as a result of that thread. Over the next 4 days, there were six edits to the article, each one occurring after discussion on the talk page. In the three days since, there have been 50+ edits, with about 36 of those contributed by Viriditas. While many of those edits had concurrent messages on the talk page, very few of them were discussed before being made.
I'm reluctant to summarise the content of those edits by Viriditas for fear of misrepresenting his efforts, but I'm sure that with a quick review, you can make your own judgements. Nor am I making any judgements on the quality or validity of the 50+ edits made to the article in the last three days beyond simply noting the volume and timing. --Thepm (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I gathered it is about the lead, but it's hard to figure out what's going on.
As for the thread you recommend I read, that's exactly my point. 255 watchers remain silent because they don't want to read 31,980 characters to get up to speed. Since then, another 110,971 keystrokes have landed.
Thepm: What I really meant was that each of the parties could write a single sentence just to state their own general position. Then watchers could read the lede as it stands at the moment and comment. But, as long as you're making good progress, I'll butt out. Happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind wishes Anna, but I don't believe we are making good progress. Unfortunately it's not a set of circumstances that I can summarize in a sentence. --Thepm (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Pity. I'd hate to see 130,000 keystrokes go to waste. How about two sentences? A couple of bullet points? You know, like at the end of a trial when the attorneys give a closing statement. Those guys never stop yaking, but they can wrap it up when they have to. Something like this:
PARTY 1:
  • Blood all over the Bronco, and you know it.
  • Motive
  • History of violence
PARTY 2:
  • Gimmie a break. Bloody glove too small.
  • No witnesses
  • Playing golf at the time
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Anna, we are not making any progress. The last version of the lead which had broad consensus was this one: [45]. Since then, Viriditas has largely single-handedly turned it into the current version, without permission or regard for consensus. A number of editors regard his additions as biased, and thus all the above discussion. This is a shame, because we were making good progress before he did this. If you want to help, I think you should ask Viriditas to self revert to this earlier consensus version, and we could then restart from where we were interrupted. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be using the word "bias" differently than the way we use it on Wikipedia. I've brought this up with you before. There is nothing "biased" about my additions to this article; in fact, my edits summarized and paraphrased already existing material and significant points in the article per WP:LEAD. This was explained to you several times and has been raised as an issue again and again throughout this discussion. The irony, of course, is that the lead was stable for the last year before you and Thepm deleted it and replaced it with a biased version that did not adhere to WP:LEAD. Upon further discussion it has become clear that you and Thepm have no interest in writing Wikipedia articles per best practices, but instead, appear to be pushing the now discredited climategate conspiracy theory to the detriment of this topic. Over and over and over again I've asked you to show me, to demonstrate the alleged "bias" that you claim I've added. So far, you have not been able to do so. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
V, the point you are making is quite irrelevant because as you know full well the intention is to rewrite the entire, sorry article. Do you not see that the program to rewrite the article has the support of TenOfAllTrades, Sailbystars, Yopienso, Pete Tillman, Dave Souza, Almightybob, and plenty of others? As far as you not being able to see the bias of your additions, it should be sufficient to you that no one has supported your position. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The point I am making is addressing the central point, the point you keep avoiding. To quote Hans Adler in response to you on 19 April: "You are just trying to rewrite this according to your POV. I appears that according to you the point is that climate scientists (add whatever qualifier is needed) manipulated data." The climategate conspiracy theory that you are promoting has been completely discredited by six separate investigations. You need to start writing about that in the article. Get to it. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If nothing else, hopefully this has illustrated the problem for Anna. I find it very difficult to discuss edits or improvements with someone who has no compunction in accusing me of having "no interest in writing Wikipedia articles per best practices" and "pushing the now discredited climategate conspiracy theory to the detriment of this topic." --Thepm (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going from your own words. In our previous discussion you refused to acknowledge WP:LEAD or make an effort to summarize the main points of this article. In an effort to meet you halfway and get a grip on your POV, I asked you to please show me a GA or FA lead section that represents the type of style you are going for here. You couldn't even do that, proving to me that you are using arbitrary standards to push a POV, instead of the WP:LEAD guideline all editors can agree upon. Your POV also seems to match that of the Institute of Public Affairs, which promotes the idea that climategate, the now discredited conspiracy theory, is factual. After six investigations discredited the conspiracy claims of the climate sceptics, it's time to update your paradigm and your sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think looking forward would be most helpful. It might be best to avoid commenting on the current state of the lede, other editors, or the past.

Imagine the article doesn't exist, and you all want to collaborate to start it. You would each be required to state what you think it should be about. That's what the lede is. A summary of what the lede should be about is needed. Maybe putting that down in bullet form, simply, would be best. A teensy bit of rationale at the end of each point in parentheses could help. The keyword is teensy. Write a phonebook and everything will get convoluted. K.I.S.S.

Then, others can read each point of view, check refs via google, (and not what's necessarily in the article now), then read the lede, and comment. This should be the best path toward a solution. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Anne, I've been following this article since the great "Climategate naming" controversy of many months ago, when it was mentioned on Jimbo's page and I wound up being drawn into this mess. Your initial point about the watchers vs. participants ratio is sound. It doesn't help that the discussions have a tendency to get personal on both sides, and that's a real turnoff. ScottyBerg (talk)
I used to follow discussions on this page fairly closely, but things have gotten a bit WP:TLDR in the past few weeks. I'm mostly in agreement with Viriditas's points, although I haven't been able to look at them in detail. Thepm is essentially trying to make the article increase coverage a point of view which has long since been discredited in the most reliable sources available. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD, we should not do so. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Sailsbystars' comment is a very valuable one. He doesn't really read what's going on here because it's too long. He's broadly in favour of what Viriditas says (after all, the science is right and there was no great wrongdoing on the part of the scientists), he can see that I am on an opposite side to Viriditas, so I must be "trying to make the article increase coverage a point of view which has long since been discredited." It's a perfectly reasonable position.
Now, I know that if he read everything that has been posted, he would have a different view, but I can't honestly say that I would read the whole damn thing if I hadn't been part of it. --Thepm (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Welcome to Wikipedia Thepm! This is, basically, how it works. What you're seeing here is not the exception, but the rule. This is how climate change pages in Wikipedia are all written. And until Jimmy Wales does something to fix it, it will always be this way. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the personal attack about Jimbo. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hilarious, you've inspired me to move the remark to his talk page where it belongs. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Alex, we write articles using the best sources available. Speaking of which, would the two of you mind helping to collaborate on improving the article? It is currently missing two subsections in the inquiries and reports section, namely a subsection on the report by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Commerce report requested by Inhofe. Also, could you review this article published by Information World Review?[46] It describes the changes that have been planned/implemented in response to the inquiries and should be added to a new section. Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
V, I have no doubt you believe what you say, and genuinely believe that anyone who opposes you is by definition an extremist POV pusher, as was quickly apparent with Thepm. No amount of discussion is going to change you in this regard. But by the way, V, are you or is anyone else going to answer the question I have now repeatedly posed, viz. do you understand the difference between reliably sourced facts and reliably sourced opinions? Do you know what you are supposed to do when reliable sources express a variety of conflicting opinions, which is the case, for instance, with Climategate? I say 'supposed' because I recognise that no one actually does it, but I'm curious if anyone understands what actually should happen. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
How does that "reply" address my invitation to collaborate at 04:57, 28 April 2011? Who exactly are you arguing with? Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Why do you presume it is your prerogative to set the agenda? I have asked this question repeatedly, to you, and to others, and I am quite curious that no one will answer it. Since you have taken ownership of the article, getting you to understand content policies is the only way of making any progress here. To answer your question, I have no interest in expanding the article while such appalling bias exists throughout. So now can you answer my question please? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Alex, have you ever had any interest in improving or expanding this article? Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, V, I did and I still do. But you have, unfortunately, made it impossible. Now, will you answer the question? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Glad to hear you are interested. In that case, can you help me add two subsections in the inquiries and reports section, including sources supporting the report from the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Commerce? Also, could you review this source for addition to the article? I am not at all clear what your question has to do with collaborating on improving and expanding the article. You claim that "reliable sources express a variety of conflicting opinions" on this subject, but after six investigations, sources have come to an equilibrium of opinion on the subject. Perhaps you are not aware, but when we are dealing with a topic that has been edited in the heat of recentism, new sources supersede the old ones. If you have any questions, or wish to post an example of two sources contradicting each other, I would be happy to explain in detail. But, we should put the improvement of this article at the top of the list. Specific questions about policy and guidelines (such as how to deal with conflicting sources, if they exist) should be made at the noticeboards, not here. Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Enough. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Viriditas, for a long overdue look at improving the coverage and analysis reported in this article. To be clear, I supported simplification of the lead as a way of moving beyond the recentism which had resulted in a "he said...she said" sort of guddle. It's a very good point that after six investigations, reliable sources have come to an equilibrium of opinion on the subject, though of course minority misrepresentation continues. Actually, p. 18 of the Inspector General's inquiry report has a chart listing eight, including Imhofe's minority report and the InterAcademy Council report on "Climate Change Assessments, Review of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC" which isn't specifically about this topic. So, including the Inspector General's inquiry itself, that gives eight investigations. . dave souza, talk 08:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You obviously like what V has said, but that doesn't make it true. It is quite clear, from the article, that all the inquiries agreed in criticising the CRU's handling of FOI requests, and general refusal to give data to skeptics. This isn't my opinion; it's what the article already says. None of the inquiries wrote in glowing terms of Phil Jones' requests for others to delete emails subject to FOI requests. The ICO stated unambiguously that it was not particularly impressed that CRU scientists broke the law. So, V's lead, which says, "Major allegations against the scientists were rejected in six separate investigations" is simply not true, and not consistent with the article, and can only be made true if you happen to share V's opinion that breaking the law is not a 'major allegation'. The deputy information commissioner said, "FOI requests were "not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation"." Why does V's lead not say this? The POV tag must remain. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Alex, my original edit (which was changed by Tillman or another editor) said that "Serious allegations against climate scientists by climate sceptics were summarily rejected by five separate investigations." In your reply above, you claim that this statement "is simply not true, and not consistent with the article." I'm afraid you are not just mistaken about the sources in the article, Alex, you are ignoring what all of the mainstream reliable sources say on this subject:
"Five investigations into the "Climategate" scandal have now cleared a group of scientists accused of twisting data in an effort to prove the world is getting warmer...British and American investigations have now largely exonerated the scientists, saying they did not warp their studies to reach a pre-determined end."San Francisco Chronicle
"All five investigations have come down largely on the side of the climate researchers, rejecting a number of criticisms raised by global-warming skeptics."The New York Times
Source after source say over and over again that the scientists were cleared of all serious/major allegations. You can find this statement made in reference to each and every investigation. I have previously asked Alex to help add sources to this article and expand the investigations so that he could see the sources for himself and add the material with his own hand. He has so far, refused. What we have here is a clear case of POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize for my early hastier comment which I have struck above. It seems that what has happened on the talk page here is a bypassing of WP:BOLD. Too much talky over exact wordings and such when the actual issues are more broad and over-arching. What I suggest would be the best way forward is that anyone who feels strongly about how the lead should be written should be bold, and re-write the lead in user space. We could then discuss which overall plan is the best way forward, perhaps in a binding RfC (i.e. no more edits to the lede for six months or some such). The problem with CC articles in the past, and which seems to be returning, is letting the forest grow out of control because people are too busy deciding how to trim a single tree. Thepm has boldly tried to actually cut down the gnarly old forest, and should be commended for trying to do so in a contentious area. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the lead was stable for a year before Thepm and Alex showed up to push a discredited POV based on a conspiracy theory discredited by more than six investigations. Alex's reply above is simply incorrect and verging on dishonesty. The claim that "major (my original wording was "serious", which was changed to "major" by another editor) allegations against the scientists were rejected in six separate investigations" is supported by reliable sources, by the reliable sources in the article, and more importantly, is the mainstream POV. Alex and Thepm are quite clearly POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas, I wouldn't lump Alex and Thepm in the same group. Thepm isn't as well versed in article-writing as you are (few Wikipedians are) but his main reason for his edits seems to have been improving readability of the article and been about as non-partisan as you can get in a topic as contentious as this one. Alex has been around for a lot longer and made his views on the tone of the article quite clear. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
From the very beginning, when Thepm arrived and deleted the previous stable lead, all I asked is for him to follow WP:LEAD and summarize the main points of the article. He and Alex have both ignored me and refused, preferring to edit by omission, which is a form of POV pushing. I have not asked very much of anyone. Alex has made some bizarre claims above, outright denying the material and the sources in the article. I even added the two main criticisms of the scientists to the lead (bunker mentality and lack of transparency) which essentially completes the summary in whole. Further, they criticized the criticism of the media CJR as "biased", a criticism that is again, found in source after source on this topic. I don't think Thepm or Alex have done the slightest bit of research on this topic. Alex claims that sources are contradictory, but after reviewing them again for the last few days, I haven't found a single contradiction. Viriditas (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
How long does Viriditas get to keep asserting, post after post, that two editors believe in a conspiracy theory he has just invented before he is topic banned by the ArbCom discretionary sanctions? He is repeating this in pretty much every post he makes now and I'm kind of amazed that this is tolerated. At least in my case, I have a reputation of being a skeptic. While I reject the label, I'm happy to acknowledge that people see me that way, and I don't particularly care. I'm used to the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. But Thepm has not uttered even a single word that could be mistaken for skepticism. I'm almost certain he's a perfectly regular proponent of AGW orthodoxy. Is someone going to do something to stop this? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The climategate conspiracy theory is a subset of global warming conspiracy theory. It is classified as a conspiracy by Goertzel (2010), who categorizes it along with AIDS denialism. Venkatraman (2010) says climategate "refers to the immense conspiracy theory" and Winterton (2010) breaks it down by choice of words, explaining that climategate "evokes the 'Watergate' scandal. Watergate is a one-word shorthand for illegal and unethical attempts to suborn the political process (and a high-level conspiracy to cover it up)...the scandal [Climategate] the journalists and commentators were seeking to highlight was not the theft of personal documents, but an alleged conspiracy involving leading climate scientists." There is no doubt whatsoever that the proponents of climategate are pushing a conspiracy theory. It's a fact. Viriditas (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_39&oldid=791884170"