Talk:Phil Jones (climatologist)

News about Phil Jones and the CRU

2004: Jones, to an Australian climate scientist: "Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." [1]

August 2009: "The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data." [2]

November 2009: "University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown" [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.110.130 (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a highly notable and highly documented event. Please stop censoring it.Flegelpuss (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

None of your sources are reliable, even for an ordinary article, let alone a biography William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The text you deleted sourced the BBC and the New York Times. Flegelpuss (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The alleged scandal is in the Daily Telegraph and the Wall Street Journal now.andycjp (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Links would help. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#Reliable sources, but be aware of undue weight concerns about this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should add this to the article: [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.199.212.146 (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

he's temporarily stepping down. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j_dt9Bjj5yVV7k1PAyDnVHKvKtgAD9CAM0VG0 --DHeyward (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:LDR citation style

I added references using the WP:LDR citation style. Any questions, please ask.--SPhilbrickT 18:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

International Journal of Climatology prize

I add a citation for the International Journal of Climatology prize. Unfortunately, the best source I could find was a Word doc. I used the HTML conversion of the page; not sure which one is worse. I looked at RMETS but I didn't see a listing pf prizes prior to 2006. Maybe someone can find a better reference.--SPhilbrickT 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

CV?

I would think that the concerns of undue weight would be alleviated if we could get a pointer to Jones' CV to find out when he joined CRU and has he been associated with other institutions and what role has he played in all his associations. His UEA page might be a good start. TMLutas (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit

Ideally we'd wait more than 5 seconds to ref [5] but I doubt there is any hope; at least it is now properly sourced William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Allegation of theft with respect to CRU hacking incident e-mail

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

---

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/FAQ

---

You removed the word "alleged" with regard to the Climate Research Unit hacking incident. Since the article cites specified that CRU alleges theft, not that a court has found a theft occurred, this appears to the observer to be either your point of view, original research, or a reference by you to a source you have not cited. I'm sure this is a case of the latter, and simply a good-faith oversight on your part. What is your source for the statement "no alleged about it", and can you add it to the article, please Thanks!

Also, with regard to, "and we don't need hide the decline either," I'm not sure I follow you. Can you explain what you mean by this? Thanks again!

DGaw (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think that this is contentious, please provide a reliable source which claims that they were distributed with the permission of either the authors of the emails, or the UEA. Taking property without permission is theft. So unless you have a reliable source that says otherwise, the tag is clearly unwarranted. On the other hand, if you have a reliable source that says that they were taken with permission, we clearly need to consider it. Guettarda (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Theft and stolen are loaded words. They are loaded with both emotional meaning and legal meaning. If you want to split hairs, theft in English law (according to wiki): "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". On many levels of this definition "theft" and "stolen" would not apply to what happened without further evidence that it did. It is questionable that an e-mail is "property", it is questionable that "dishonesty" was used and it is hard to understand how redistributing an e-mail would in anyway qualify for "permanently depriving the other of it". The e-mails still exist. Perhaps there's a cybercrime, perhaps not. If someone had access that shouldn't have, they may be guilty of a hacking crime. If someone had legal access but distributed without permission, they may be in violation of internal rules or privacy laws. Without further information, the use of the word "theft" suggests a determination by the police or the courts which has not yet been made. (The victim's word on what happened is relevant only in reporting that they believe something to be stolen.) Calling it theft or stolen other than when quoting the victim would constitute original research or synthesis. It can certainly be stated (if cited) that the CRU says they were "stolen" but that does not make it so and it should not be reported as such at this time. HarmonicSeries (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Stolen, hacked, theft etc. are the words used in most of the reliable sources. Both the emails and the documents are the property of CRU. It is intellectual property for one. I'm sorry to say that your original research is not going to fly without some serious reliable sources to say so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the FAQ of the article on the incident, which outlines what all reliable sources on the incident have reported. --TS 15:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is not on some editor to find a RS claiming the emails were distributed with permission, the burden of proof is on the editor using the unqualified term "stolen" to provide a reliable source in support of the claim. There are two citations in that sentence, one of which is currently not found. The other uses the word "stolen" but the report carefully characterizes it as a statement by the purported victim. It isn't the conclusion of the reporter, it is just a paraphrase of a claim. I won't be surprised if there is a better source in existence, but until someone finds such a source, the term should be qualified with "alleged". I'm making the change, if someone wants to track down an acceptable reference, they can change it back.--SPhilbrickT 16:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the FAQ A5 doesn't help. Police investigate claims of crimes all the time. The investigation does not prove a crime occurred, much less which specific crime. RealClimate's claims are not relevant to the issue of whether CRU's data was stolen.--SPhilbrickT 16:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, but when something is appropriated without permission it is theft. In this case data theft. Theft is neither alleged or in any other way controversial. Who the perpetrator is may be alleged or controversial, but the act in itself is not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is only one case in which the theft could be alleged - and that is if there is reason to doubt whether the CRU itself released them. No such doubt exists. But lets speculate: An insider released the information (the "whistleblower" hypothesis) - then it would still be theft, since he would have done it without permission. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I don't know whether you are a lawyer or not, but it doesn't matter. That statement (Sorry, but when something is appropriated without permission it is theft) is almost certainly wrong, but if correct, it is hardly obvious, so needs a reference. If I copy someone I write to a website, and fail to secure it, and then you copy it, I haven't given you permission to take it, but it isn't theft. While that may not be the situation in this case, the single reference attached tot he sentence doesn't preclude that possibility. If there are relaible sources saying it is theft, then please find one and add it to the article.--SPhilbrickT 16:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)--SPhilbrickT 16:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

IANAL but in the case you hypothesize it is indeed theft under most laws. You cannot appropriate other peoples intellectual property or copyright just because it isn't protected. Just as in the real live world, where it is still theft if you steal an item from a house where the door was open. If the data isn't yours, then you are doing data-theft by appropriating/copying it. You might be "legally excused" for not knowing that the data was under IP or copyright - but if you know - then its theft. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You keep emphasizing that CRU didn't "release" the information. You haven't cited a single reference stating that theft occurs if something is taken without an affirmative release. I doubt you will find one, as it isn't true. Look, if I were to bet, I'd bet that we will eventually find out that someone accessed the files illegally. But WP is not in the business of citing as fact things that are likely to be true. We are in the business of citing as fact information that can be backed up by a reliable source. People say they exist, so why not just find one and add it?

"The burden of proof is not on some editor to find a RS claiming the emails were distributed with permission" - totally false. When no source disputes the fact, then we can't dispute the fact. We cannot introduce our own analysis into articles. Guettarda (talk)

You are missing the fact that there is no source in the article making the assertion. Find such a source, and problem solved. When Kim argues (incorrectly, BTW) that we can synthesize theft from facts that the material was distributed, and lack of facts that permission was granted, Kim is attempting to introduce analysis into the article. As you point out, we cannot do that.--SPhilbrickT 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

How is that missing the fact? If you agree that there's no source that makes that assertion, then I think we're done here. Analyses by editors are irrelevant. If there's no source for your version, there's no way we put it in the article. There's no way we imply it in the article. Guettarda (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? "Find such a source, and problem solved"? My point exactly. Then why were you saying the opposite, above? Guettarda (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is NO source backing up the claim that the files were stolen, other than the COI paraphrase from the CRU, which is not reliable. WP is not supposed to be making assertions that cannot be backed up by reliable sources--SPhilbrickT 17:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A victim doesn't have a COI when stating that a crime has happened. Especially not if no one disputes that the crime hasn't happened. But just to placate your concerns - i've referenced the BBC for the single word "stolen". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No sources? WTF? Now you're just making shit up. That's clearly tendentious editing. If you're going to make nonsense up, please stop wasting people's time. Guettarda (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Here I was happy that we finally reached agreement, and you post something like that. Please take a short break, then explain yourself. --SPhilbrickT 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

<-Kim, I see that you reverted my edit without proving a source for the claim. That's very inappropriate. Please immediately find a source to back up the claim, or undo your reversion. Your analysis is flawed, and even if sound, is Synthesis. Everyone keeps saying there are reliable sources stating it was theft. Why the reluctance to providing such a source? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs)

OK, I think we're done here. When editors step over the line and start making prima facie false claims, I think that's stepping over the line into disruption. Guettarda (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd best be careful in your accusations. I'm happy to have another disinterested party look at this. It is not proper to accuse other editors of bad faith. The source that KDP has provided is not proper either, a paraphrased headline of a comment from CRU is not reliable in ascertaining that the e-mails were "stolen". There is a duty of care in editing this properly however little you may think it is necessary to be precise. If someone is killed, it may or may not be murder. You can say police are investigating a possible murder, you can say someone is charged with murder, you can quote people's opinions that the victim was murdered. The words "theft" and "stolen" have precise legal meanings and I see no reason to avoid precision in this case. Accusing others of bad faith and disruption is entirely inappropriate. HarmonicSeries (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Two editors made a good point int his thread. Specifially, DGaw pointed out that the existing source did not support the use of the unqualified phrasing, and HarmonicSeries made an excellent argument why it cannot simply be assumed that a theft occurred. I agreed, and added the word alleged. Kim reverted, but without a solid basis, just a vague reference to a FAQ. which doesn't contain any reliable sources, and a synthesized analysis which I believe is flawed. What is so hard about adding a reference to support the claim?--SPhilbrickT 17:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Discussion re reversion

I removed "stolen". A theft has been alleged by the alleged victim, so hardly a reliable source. The alleged theft is being investigated. The investigation may be conclusive and then we'll know. But we may never know for sure. The "theft" may have been an internal leak, and, in either case, may not be a theft under fair usage and/or public interest provisions. My edit was reverted.

   * (cur) (prev) 02:38, 28 December 2009 Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) (8,428 bytes) (We report the fact from reliable sources. Not speculation. Undid revision 334428578 by Psb777 (talk)) (undo) 

The point is that the UEA is not a reliable source as it is the victim. Others report the theft is reported, not proven. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones and the ICO

The relevant part of the Information Commissioner's statement is this:

"The e-mails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information."

The full text of the statement can be found here, though not on the ICO's website for some reason. Oddly enough, the ICO does not appear to have contacted the UEA either. The UEA's vice-chancellor has issued a statement in reply saying:

"The university learnt the ICO had made a statement to the media regarding the university's handling of requests under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. We have not received any further information from the ICO although we are urgently trying to contact them. The ICO's opinion that we had breached the terms of Section 77 is a source of grave concern to the university as we would always seek to comply with the terms of the act. During this case we have sought the advice of the ICO and responded fully to any requests for information."

Note that the ICO's statement does not attribute blame to any individual, nor does the UEA VC's statement. Therefore it is original research and a clear BLP violation to attribute blame to any individual in this or any other article. The ongoing review by Sir Muir Russell will probably make findings about individuals, but until then we should steer clear of speculation. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --DGaw (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid speculation, but the findings of the ICO would be relevant to this biography I would have thought? Phil Jones is a climate scientist closely associated with a University climate department that has been found to breach the law. Thepm (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The ICO's statement has blamed the university, not the individual. Therefore using the statement to cast blame on an individual not mentioned in it would be original research, as it could not be supported by the source. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. We should be careful not to cast blame, but as I said, Phil Jones is a climate scientist closely associated with a University climate department that has been found to breach the law. I think that this fact is, at the very least, noteworthy within the guy's bio. Thepm (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Your argument would suggest that the ICO's statement should be reported in any biography of anyone associated with the CRU. But we come back to the original research problem - since the ICO has not mentioned any individual, linking the ICO's statement with a specific individual can't be justified. It would introduce an unacceptable element of innuendo by implying a link where none exists in the source. In any case, we only need to wait another three or four weeks until the independent inquiry reports - then we can reliably document who is being assigned the responsibility/blame. There's no need to rush to judgment before then. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones was not just any employee. He was the director. Not mentioning this just enhances Wikipedia's reputation for bias on climate change. Richard Tol (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making your biases clear. However, you want to read WP:BLP. Accusing someone of criminal activity based on a source that doesn't mention him is clearly unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, in good faith and trying to maintain a balanced discussion, perhaps I misunderstand Jones' role at the CRU. Please correct my understanding if it's wrong. I had assumed that he held a role equivalent to a General Manager (or something like that) of the CRU. Was he "a director" or "the director"? It seems the latter.

As a person in a leadership position of an organisation, I would have expected that his biography would mention that the organisation he led had been found to have broken the law. Naturally any comment should be careful not to implicate Jones directly, but there should be a comment on the fact that he the organisation that he led had been found to breach the law. Thepm (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"Handled incorrectly"/"not dealt with as they should" is not the same as "breaching the law" - and since the ICO isn't going to rule on the issue, we will (probably) never know whether it was a "slip in bureaucracy" (paper handled incorrectly) or "fineable offence" (criminal). Under all circumstances while Jones was/is the director of the CRU, a mention of such, since it is a minor issue, is WP:UNDUE. Now you could argue that the issue currently is so "hot", in conflation with the emails, that it may warrent a mention - but then that would be merited by a misunderstanding of what wikipedia is and isn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The IOC Statement as reported here seems to indicate that the law was broken although prosecution was not possible due to the period that had elapsed since the incident. It says that "FOI requests were submitted in 2007/8 [and] they were not dealt with in accordance with the act." So I don't think the distinction between "Handled incorrectly"/"not dealt with as they should" and "breaching the law" is very relevant. The law, being Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act was breached.

I also think that it's a bit of a stretch to call this a "minor" issue. It has certainly attracted a lot of press and I suspect, whatever the outcome, it will be more than just a footnote in the story of the CRU. Dr Jones was the director of the CRU at the time of this breach, so I think it entirely relevant that his bio at least mentions the occurrence. Whether that mention becomes a larger portion or not will depend on events over the next weeks and months. Thepm (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made several changes to the article, including some structural changes. I have included a short statement to the effect that the ICO made finding regarding the CRU. I have made this as a separate sentence so that it can easily be deleted, if that is the consensus, without affecting the other changes that I've made. Thepm (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"...prominent advocate of the view that recent Global Warming has anthropogenic origins"

• significant POV. Who says? Jones was rarely in the media. What makes him an "advocate"? His research?

"A hacking incident during Jones' period as director of the Climate Research Unit, led to the release of a number of emails and other documents in an incident that came to be known as Climategate."

• Is redundant (it is described later) and it displays a couple of POV problems that have been dealt with on talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident - specifically the "climategate" name, the "release" wording.

"The University of East Anglia initially ..." combined with "However on 1 December..."

• Classic synthesis and a rewrite of what happened. UEA said he didn't have to resign. Jones temporarily resigned of own will.

"Subsequent investigations into..."

• Has the problems that i mentioned above. WP:NOTNEWS,WP:WEIGHT and tangentially related.

All in all not a good edit imho. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please refrain from misusing NOTNEWS to keep recent information out of the article. UnitAnode 05:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  Enduring notability/content-value, as well as ensuring (as well as we can) that we do not carry information that, within a short period of time, might be shown as incorrect, is, and should be the guiding principles of an encylopedia. These points are summarized in WP:NOTNEWS, and derived from our content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOT and in this case also WP:BLP). If we sink to a level where we change our (long-term) content based upon the latest and greatest (based on POV) newspaper article, then (imho) Wikipedia has lost, and become WikiNews with just a tiny bit more context and background. There has been a (imho) terrible tendency lately to assume that just because something can be referenced to a reliable source, then it must be given room in articles. Weight and NPOV in general isn't an easy concept, but that doesn't mean that one can ignore it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones story in The Guardian

[6] Before people start linking NOTNEWS at me, I feel we need to remember that NOTNEWS isn't a prohibition on including recent happenings. It's meant to keep every single news story from turning into a stand-alone article. So how about let's not start linking that improperly. UnitAnode 05:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a similar article in The Independent. Personally I think it should be mentioned in the article, along with the fact that he was head of the CRU at the time the CRU breached FOI laws. I'll bet that's not the consensus view though. Thepm (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, there's no way that "scientific consensus" can be invoked regarding this. UnitAnode 06:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Using recent stories in BLP is a bad idea; saying "don't use NOTNEWs" doesn't help, because NOTNEWs still applies. So: no, don't include this, at the very least yet William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTNEWS is NOT meant for that use. It's wildly misused on these pages, simply to keep out any negative information. UnitAnode 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A press release?!?!? You cite a PRESS RELEASE, as your rebuttal?!?!? UnitAnode 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Rebuttal"? And here i thought we had to ensure NPOV by addressing all reliable source? See also the above comment on attempting to ensure that content doesn't get invalidated within a short time period, and has an enduring notability. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the article, it does seems a bit newsy but because so there's so little actually content in the article. It should be balanced out with more biographical information including more on his career. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

On my reading, The Guardian and The Independent essentially are claiming that the 1990 paper was at best sloppy, but perhaps fraudulent. On the other hand, UEA's media relations have issued a press release of the sort that is not unexpected from a media relations department. Are there any other sources that discuss this specific issue? Thepm (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/climate-emails-sceptics William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but it doesn't actually address the issue at hand. The Guardian article and a similar piece in The Independent discuss the 1990 paper specifically. They appear to claim that the 1990 paper published by Jones and Wang is, as I say above, at best sloppy, but perhaps fraudulent. The Guardian article in particular has been reprinted and/or rehashed a few times [7] [8] [9]. I was looking for a response to these. The article that you've linked to is a more general apologia, commenting on climategate emails being taken out of context. Thepm (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So, are you going to respond to his real question, or just leave this non sequitur as your only response? UnitAnode 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarity

First sentence includes "this work figured prominently in the IPCC TAR SPM." I know the initialisms are wikilinked, but this is not exactly reader-friendly. Rd232 ^talk 10:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also the lead is rather unclear about his status as director - when did his tenure begin? When will it end, if it hasn't already? Has he actually resigned, or temporarily stood aside? Is he merely stepping down as CRU director, or leaving the university? None of this is clear enough. Rd232 ^talk 10:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with rd232. The average reader probably doesn't know what the IPCC TAR SPM is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the claim that his work featured "prominently" in the IPCC TAR SPM is sourced to this: [10]. It's not obvious to me how the source backs up the claim. It appears to be one figure in the SPM; the source itself doesn't link that to Jones. Rd232 ^talk 11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert edits based on Timesonline article

Reverted edit that refers to article in Times. There is a similar article in Daily Mail. Both these articles say little more than that Jones had "suicidal thoughts" but has "got past that stage now". I think this is entirely unremarkable for a man under that degree of pressure. Comments of this nature should be discussed before they are made to the article. Personally I would have to see a very strong justification for any comments on this in the article itself before I would be agreeable to them. Thepm (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably, CoM restored the text, with no attempt at discussion. I agree with you, and have re-removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The reader comments on that Times story are deplorable. It goes to show the depth of hatred the far right feels for this man. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert the content. I read the source and edited it so it accurately reflected the cited article's contents. The claims of a BLP violation are laughable misguided. Two reliable independent media sources have reported on the personal toll the scandal has taken on Phil with entire articles on that subject. If editors want to censor that information the same way they've excluded any notation of the official findings concluding that Phil engaged in illegal misconduct, then so be it.

In my experience, "I don't like it" is the siren call of POV pushers distorting Wikipedia's content for personal whims and propaganda purposes, but until admins step up to enforce our core NPOV policy and to rein in the abuses we'll have misleading, incomplete, and innaccurate information like we do in this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't say "laughable", you will make Lar sad William M. Connolley (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I revised it to "misguided". I don't want to make Lar sad. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I read that item when it was added to this article. It struck me as singularly inappropriate. Thank you for removing it. It added nothing and, if it had remained, could only have succeeded in dragging Wikipedia down to the level of The Times. --TS 23:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably Cla68 has added another version of the same material despite the reservations that have been expressed here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a revert was altogether in order there. There are three points that Cla68 made that I think should go back. 1. The finding of the FOI breach. 2. Jones' statement of regret ("should have treated the requests for information more seriously") and 3. His statement of support for the work that was done. I'd like to put those points back, but will await others comments given that they have just been reverted.

As for the suicide business, I say again that I find it entirely unremarkable. Thepm (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To claim that The Times is unreliable because it has some kind of political bias is OR and inappropriate. The information I added was NPOV, giving Jones' side, including his claims of receiving death threats, as well as those who have criticized him or his team's actions. Is there more going on here or in the background that I'm not aware of? Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A better source

The article proposed as a source (from The Sunday Times rather than its sister paper The Times) was essentially a condensed version of a larger and more detailed article in the same day's paper. From a similar recent example, it's likely that the shorter story appeared on the front page with a "see more on page x" reference to the detailed article inside. That gives details of the pressures that led Jones to make unlawful proposals to resist what he saw as deliberate misuse of the FOI process, though also emphasising that they don't have data to destroy, the effect on him of the emails being published, and particularly what he agreed was "a David Kelly moment". Note the "agreed", the implication is that the reporter put the issue of thoughts of suicide to Jones. The fact that he thought of it a few times but was now over it may be worth noting, more significant is the parallel with Kelly. That has a lot of resonance in the UK, where a scientist was under pressure about an information leak under investigation and was hounded by the press, until he committed suicide and the press then turned on the government for not giving the scientist adequate support. It's also worth considering his emphasis that the CRU work is validated by comparisons with independent studies. . . dave souza, talk 21:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That article has some good information. Please add something from it to this article. I'm sure that you can do so in a NPOV manner, and I mean that. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I just added the substance of the information to the article in a way that gives heavy weight to Jones' side, while still conveying the substance of the criticisms. Why couldn't any of you guys above have done this instead of just reverting? Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP vio

I have removed this section since the first sentence fails BLP - it's negative info that's not supported by a citation. (It's not in the Times article). The rest of the para just doesn't make sense without the first sentence. Guettarda (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifically: Jones appeared to direct his team to refuse to provide data for Freedom of information (FOI) requests. The source says The thieves’ eureka moment came when they found messages from Jones, the unit’s director, and others apparently encouraging climate scientists to refuse freedom of information (FoI) requests. "Apparently encouraging [people]" is clearly not the same as "direct[ing people]". In addition, "direct[ing] his team" implies that he was using his position as unit leader to direct his staff to do wrong. Not supported by the source. Quite a smear to add to a BLP. Guettarda (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the first sentence in question: "Critics have charged that the emails showed that Jones appeared to direct his team to refuse to provide data to Freedom of information (FOI) requests."

Here's the line from the source: "The thieves’ eureka moment came when they found messages from Jones, the unit’s director, and others apparently encouraging climate scientists to refuse freedom of information (FoI) requests from known climate sceptics, and even to destroy data rather than surrender them to anyone they feared might misuse them." and "Jones insists that is not the way it was, but concedes it was the way it may have looked. He now accepts that he did not treat the FoI requests as seriously as he should have done."

I'm having a hard time seeing how that first line doesn't match what the source says. Moreover, I don't understand why you didn't simply rephrase the first line to match what you feel the source says instead of simply reverting the whole thing. Please explain. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it per your suggestion above. Again, I have to ask, why didn't you just do it yourself instead of reverting the lot? Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And you're still misrepresenting the source. Guettarda (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• To begin with, we don't write about amorphous "critics" - it's horrible form. Who are these critics? Secondly, Girling isn't talking about critics. He's talking about thieves. So changing "thieves" into "critics" is a misrepresentation of the source. Probably could find another source that says "critics", though, of course, unless we're talking about film critics, it's a very poor choice of words. Guettarda (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, to settle this I went to Proquest NewsStand and found this: "The Information Commissioner's office ruled that UEA was in breach of the Freedom of Information Act -- an offence punishable by an unlimited fine. But it said it was unable to prosecute because the complaint was made too late. The ICO wants the law changed so that complaints made more than six months after a breach of the act can still result in prosecutions, it was reported. Stolen emails disclosed the university's Climatic Research Unit tried to block requests for raw data and other figures, and implied senior university staff had played a role in the refusal of the requests. Prof Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit, stood down while official inquiries were made. In an email, Prof Jones requested that a colleague delete correspondence regarding a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007. He also told a co-worker he had convinced university authorities not to answer freedom of information requests from people with connections to a website operated by climate change sceptics."

Okay, I'll make it say exactly what it says here. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Accurately representing sources is not some sort of a concession. It's the bare minimum. Guettarda (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• First, there was never any "BLP vio" as the heading of this sub-section states. Second, why all the resistance to inclusion of something we know to be objectively true? UnitAnode 00:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• No problem. I fixed it. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• "[W]hy all the resistance to inclusion of something we know to be objectively true?" Well, (a) I don't know that it's objectively true that Jones directed his team to do anything of the sort, and more importantly (b) we can't claim sources say things that they don't say. We can't just take anything we know to be True, find a source that says something vaguely similar, and claim the source says what we know to be True. It's dishonest, and it will earn you an zero on your paper. Guettarda (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)