Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

NOTICE: Per the probation sanctions logged here
this article is currently under a 1RR editing restriction.

Inclusion of FoIA material

This edit removed information about the ICO's statements on the UEA's alleged breach of the FOI act (*pauses to catch proverbial breath*). The text was re-added. I figured I'd open a dialogue to make sure that re-addition meshes with consensus. If people feel it's necessary to propose alternative versions of the given text that could be productive as well. I suppose I'll interpret silence as consent.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ICO's statement is still removed, while UEA's "damage control" about the statement is now present. ICO found that UEA breached the FOI, but that prosecution was time-barred. I'm not going to restore the appropriate information at this time, but it should be done soon. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of hidden at the end here: Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#UK_Government. The context for the statement (added by Dave Souza here) obviously dwarfs the statement itself, which might be remedied a per WP:UNDUE. Any thoughts on another version?--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hidden is being nice. The majority of the section is now the EAU's response to.....what exactly. I was temped to re-insert it pending the previous discussion now that it appears that the primary reason for removal was the belief that "The Times" is not a reliable source. Clearly I don't see how anyone can make that claim per WP:RS, so the next step is to agree on a version. Arzel (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, our article has never shown the ICO's statement as given in the newspaper. We showed an extract of a private letter from the ICO to the university, selected by the newspaper out of context to give maximum shock horror newsworthiness. Wikipedia is not news. The current version shows more, not less, of that letter from the ICO dated 29 January 2010. You can download all three letters at the link used as a reference, and read them yourself. According to the newspaper article, the ICO's statement regarding the university's submission is:
"The commissioner has provided the select committee with a copy of the January 29 letter to which the university referred in a press statement. This is so that the committee can be aware of the full contents. The commissioner has not been invited to give evidence to the committee but stands ready to assist the inquiry."
The response from the university was that: “The point Professor Acton was making is that there has been no investigation so no decision, as was widely reported. The ICO read e-mails and came to assumptions but has not investigated or demonstrated any evidence that what may have been said in emails was actually carried out.”
It's worth noting that the ICO letter of 29 January states near the end that "Errors like this are frequently made in press reports, and the ICO cannot be expected to correct them, particularly when the ICO has not itself referred to penalties or sanctions in its own statement..... our original statement was only drafted for one journalist in response to a specific enquiry." So far that original statement does not seem to have been made public, I'd expect it to appear during the Select Committee hearing or, if need be, in response to a FOI request to the ICO. At present the paragraph follows the "he said, she said" format, we can expand it to clarify these points, or seek to agree here a brief statement summarising the present state of public knowledge. . . dave souza, talk 08:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're mixed up. The quote you give is a statement from the ICO that they have handed over the letter they sent to the UEA. It's not a quote from the letter they sent, and it gives no indication of their position regarding the CRU researchers.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thought I made it clear enough. On 29 January and 1 February 2009 the university and the ICO exchanged private letters. These are not public statements, though they've just been made public by agreement. As reported in the press on 25 and 26 February, the university made a statement. The statement by the ICO above, which doesn't say very much exiting stuff, is the ICO's response to the university's statement. Now wait for the select committee findings. . . dave souza, talk 10:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Did you say not very exciting? The ICO letter, signed by Graham Smith, the deputy commissioner, said: “The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to image more cogent prima facie evidence... The fact that the elements of a section 77 offense may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of elapsed time, is a very serious matter... I can confirm that the ICO will not be retracting the statement. The ICO is not resiling from its position on this.” [[6]] There are some who get very excited indeed about this, including, apparently, those who want to conceal, camouflage, and delay the imputation of scandal. Oiler99 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

@Dave Souza. The ICO quote you give states that they made a press conferencestatement. It obviously is not simply private correspondence. Even if it were, it's being reported all over the place, which suffices to make it notable. If we could get back to formulating the revised version and abandon this diversion that'd be great.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Where? The quote I give says press statement, not press conference. Please read with care. Note also "our original statement was only drafted for one journalist in response to a specific enquiry" in the ICO's letter. Just because rubbish is being reported all over the place doesn't make it right. In that same letter, the ICO say "Errors like this are frequently made in press reports, and the ICO cannot be expected to correct them". Nor, it appears, can they be expected to make their "statement" public. At Climate scientist admits sending 'awful emails' but denies perverting peer review | Environment | guardian.co.uk – "Former information commissioner Richard Thomas told the committee he could not comment on whether the university had broken the rules, as a recent statement from the information office suggested. But he suggested that there was a stronger case for public disclosure when data had been used to influence public policy, such as in climate science." Not a ringing endorsement of the "statement". . . dave souza, talk 21:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, the ICO's statement emphatically does not indicate that they have found the UEA "guilty" of anything. It is very conditional. Note that it says "the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here." It does not say that such an offence has been found, or that it is proved, and goes on to say that there is nothing further that the ICO can do about it (including proving or disproving it) because of the statutory time limit. People who claim that the ICO has found the UEA guilty of a breach are simply wrong. The ICO has not made findings of any sort, as its letter makes clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless "prima facie" means something different in UK law than an US law, the ICO has not made findings, but the UEA "correspondence" web page contains misstatements. "Prima facie" means "on the face", and the ICO statement could not be interpreted as other than (including):

1. Section 77 prosecution is time-barred.
2. If it had not been time-barred, there would have been prosecutions for violations of section 77, unless evidence to the contrary was provided.
3. The fact that prosecution is time-barred is "extremely troubling" (to ICO).

Now, we can't actually say that, even though no other interpretation is possible, but it is certainly inappropriate for us to imply otherwise, or to allow UEA's implications otherwise to be treated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How is that inconsistent with the university statement? Also, where is the UEA "correspondence" web page? Do you mean their submission to the select committee? IANAL, but this would presumably be presecuted under English law (though it's a UK Act) and prima facie means that on looking at the emails, ICO think they could make a strong case in court. They hadn't consulted the university, so had not considered opposing evidence, and no "finding" could be made. . . dave souza, talk 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care what the outcome of this little tiff is. I'm not currently arguing content. I'm just saying that your original statement had no bearing on the debate at hand nor supported your conclusions in any way (though perhaps you can find such support elsewhere). Let's stick with straightforward, rational talk (something like WP:SPADE). p.s. 'conference' for 'statement' was a typo. Sorry about that.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see how this comment is aimed at improving the article, or who it's addressed to. . .dave souza, talk 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It was addressed at you, sorry if that was unclear. I was hoping for a more focused discussion as those currently active have become diffuse, to say the least. It makes consensus exceedingly difficult to sort out.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My comments are focussed on the issues raised on this page. . dave souza, talk 11:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The UEA press release (correspondence web site) is not a WP:RS, as being self-published and self-serving. The correspondence, itself is allowable as a record of the correspondence, not to used except as evidence that that is the official position of UEA and ICO, not toward the truth of the accusations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ICO's official position is relevant, and UEA's may not be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly is a reliable source. According to WP:PSTS, it's called a "reliable primary source". As long as it isn't used to create original research, it's all good. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously coming from an actor in these events, the UEA press release can only be taken as an RS for its own views per WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion, and not even about itself or events relating to itself, per WP:SELFPUB (see Item 1--because the material is self-serving). Moogwrench (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out the material that relied on citations from the UEA website in accordance with that policy. Seems commonsensical enough, anyway.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Moogwrench and Heyitspeter, you forgot the qualification "unduly" in that policy. The statement is reasonable and attributed to the university, and in addition it's published by the House of Commons. I've reintroduced a minimal statement showing the university's response to the ICO's as yet undisclosed email statement to a reporter. . . dave souza, talk 09:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

MPs have explicitly censured the UEA for operating in an unduly self-serving manner w.r.t. to precisely the report in question: "It seems unwise, at best, for the University of East Anglia to attempt to portray a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office in a good light, in evidence to the select committee, because it is inevitable that the Committee will find that letter, and notice any discrepancy. It would be a wiser course for the university not to provide any suspicion that they might be seeking to enable the wrong impression to be gained."University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’, The Times 27 February 2010. Reconsider? Heyitspeter (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

MPs have explicitly censured the UEA. More than one? Also this is again getting strange.. ICO accused UEA, then the Uni defends..., one MP critizises the response.. so? Things should really be given in normal order. Hence I don't think edits of Heyitspeter are the best possible. --J. Sketter (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to rise an issue why Heyitspeter thinks the letters published by a respected university are in "reasonable doubt as to their authenticity"? To my knowledge the content has not been challenged. --J. Sketter (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I've reordered the statements to make the sequence a bit clearer, have attributed the comment on the response as being reported by The Times, and have followed the balance shown in the source by mentioning the university's response. . . dave souza, talk 15:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

...and good edit but I feel this sections is starting to look bloated? Could/should the first part be updated?130.232.214.10 (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, J. Sketter, the answer is that I don't. There are 5 conditions on which Self-published sources are unacceptable, not just one. In this case the citation is unacceptable as per WP:SELFPUB because the first condition, that "the material is not unduly self-serving," is not fulfilled. The material is trivially self-serving, and a reliable source has reported that the material is unduly self-serving. That's about where I stand, and I do not see how a legitimate counter argument can be made.

That addresses yours and (apparently, though in conflict with past statements) Dave Souza's position. As for 130.232.214.10, hey! Welcome to the article and make yourself at home :) . It seems to me that removal of the self-published source will, in addition to bringing the article in line with WP policy, address your contention that it is too bloated.

That is to say, even if we decide to throw policy out the window for the betterment of the article, the self-published sources (and of course the responses to them) should go.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A few issues. Firstly, it's not a self published source, it's a submission published by the House of Commons. The UK parliament is not the University of East Sussex. It's a statement of the university's position, specifically referred to in three news stories, and as such is a primary source for that statement and a perfectly valid source. Your claim that it is "unduly self-serving" is tendentious and untenable. Secondly, the Times story says in its opening paragraph "The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails has been accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament." In the UK, the headline and opening paragraph are usually written by the sub-editor to spice up a story. No mention there of MPs making the accuation, and it's the oldest trick in the journalists' book to say "has been accused" when the newspaper makes an accusation. One MP gives his reaction to the accusation, but doesn't make an accusation other than to say that such behaviour would be unwise. Please read sources more carefully. Also, no need to repeat the same reference after consecutive sentences, one inline citation at the end will do nicely. . . dave souza, talk 22:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I owe an apology to Heyitspeter for not understanding the real issue and being hasty. Still... of course UEA own material is self-serving, but I haven't yet figured out why that fact makes the material outright unsuitable to use for what arguments and counters has been made. And this is honest wondering; I understand there's possible problems in using primary sources like this, 'freely' picking this or that out of the source, and that the university is not any impartial&objective actor here (but no-one thought so).--J. Sketter (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Untenable"? I backed up the statement with a reliable source, so that's by definition false. The 'not self-published' contention is just semantics. We both know it fits the policy. Your second point is variously incorrect and original research. Anything else?

I didn't notice there was a citation for the Times until I'd already reflinked and such and figured I'd let someone remove them if it seemed right. Thanks for doing so.Heyitspeter (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

On these issues, The Times is a lot less reliable than the very reasonable statements made in the UEA's submission. The UEA's a reliable source for many things, including particularly statements of its own position. As it happens, this is also published by the House of Commons, a more appropriate link which gets away from the dreaded .doc to the more open .pdf. As for your edit inserting a "who?" tag, it clearly wasn't MPs. My suspicion is this source, but that would be original research so I'll confine it to the talk page. Do see if you can get The Times to publish a statement saying who they mean. And not just generic "MPs", names needed. . . dave souza, talk 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing "reasonable" in the statements made by UEA, as of yet. Self-serving (especially those on the correspondence site) and self-published (including the submission to the House of Commons), but not reasonable. That being said, I don't yet see a reliable source for "UEA is accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament" or "UEA is accused of making a non-misleading statement to Parliament". Article titles and subtitles often have no relevance to the article. However, Dr. Evan Harris certainly implied that UEA made an unwise submission. A further implication would be that it was unwise in that it attempted to mislead. But being an MP, he didn't outright say that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange thing is that The Times ~did put the sentence in single quotation marks. --J. Sketter (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

but that would be original research so I'll confine it to the talk page Hey Dave Souza, WP:OR applies to talkpages as well: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Maintain_Wikipedia_policy.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncorrected Evidence from the Institute of Physics

Please keep discussion focused on how to improve the article

Yes, time to get this material in: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7043566.ece You can be sure it would be up in lights if the ICO had cleared UEA. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC) These links from the UEA web site are useful, too: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/ICO+response+to+UEA Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Uncorrected Evidence 39 from the Institute of Physics states – 1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context. 2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This sounds damning. One problem – as shown above and in this article, the Information Commissioner (ICO) has issued no finding, he made an (as yet undisclosed) statement to one persistent reporter that there was strong evidence sufficient to make a case that the university had failed to respond properly to a request to release private emails, but the ICO would not pursue that case as it was time-barred. The reporter misrepresented it as "hiding data", and the IOP seems to have fallen for that misrepresentation. Any introduction of this untested statement is premature. One question it raises is whether any climatologists belong to the Institute of Physics, as they would have been unlikely to produce such an ill informed submission. . . dave souza, talk 09:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC) "ill informed submission" - Do you have any evidence that their submission was ill informed, besides your own WP:OR that is? While I clearly respect you as a fellow editor I think it would be prudent to rely upon what reliable third party sources are saying when making these assessments, and not our own research. Would you not agree? --GoRight (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Much as I hate to agree with GoRight, he's correct, this time. The Times article is not misleading, and this is not a scientific article, so your attempt to apply the proposed RS/scientific guidelines is inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC) The majority of academic physicists in the UK will be members of the IOP: it is the body that accredits both individuals and physics degrees. Of course many climatologists are not physicists. You can look for the initials "MInstP" or "FInstP" or "CPhys" on CVs, but most academics don't bother including professional affiliations. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for that clarification. In any mention of this statement, we should take Institute of Physics forced to clarify submission to climate emails inquiry | Environment | guardian.co.uk into account. . . dave souza, talk 20:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC) The IOP is not bound by the statute of limitations which some are using to confuse legal liability with culpability. As such they made an assessment (unanimously approved) based on the prima facie evidence in front of them. This was not ill informed, but rather the application of common sense. I found their "clarifying" statement to clarify little. The clarification notwithstanding, the original statement certainly did cast doubt on the science at least as far as it speaks to the past century being anomalously warm. To now say that they reaffirm belief in the greenhouse effect is not saying much and doesn't change their original assessment in any substantive way I can see. JPatterson (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Personally I think your reading of the statement over reaches in terms of the implications the IOP were actually expressing. "1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context." is clearly a damning statement for the state of Climate Science but I think we need to be careful with statements such as "did cast doubt on the science at least as far as it speaks to the past century being anomalously warm". The IOP statement does NOT appear to me to address anything with that level of specificity. They are not meaning to imply that these emails have reversed any raw data or facts, because they haven't. What they have done is damage the perceived credibility and reliability of those raw data, key facts, and more importantly derived conclusions, or in the words of the IOP the integrity thereof. This reading seems consistent with both the IOP's initial statement as well as their clarification. --GoRight (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I agree. The fact that the IOP statement is damming about process should not be read as implying anything about their beliefs about outcomes. Their clarification about outcomes should not be read as implying that they resile from their comments about process. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC) From their own statements, the physicists Dr. Andy Russell and Dr Ian Hopkinson consider the statement damagingly inaccurate, and are reviewing their membership of the IoP. This could prove interesting. . . dave souza, talk 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) While I wrote to the IOP (as a member) congratulating them on their stance. So what? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) @Dave souza - This strikes me as rather self-serving (no PA intended, just a turn of phrase). The AGW proponents have traditionally made a big deal out of the statements made by the various scientific organizations regarding their positions on AGW because they saw that as a way to raise the bar above the opinion of individual scientists. Now we should suddenly care about individual dissenters in the ranks of these organizations? Dave, this mirrors the discussion above. If you feel that a couple of statements from dissenters neutralizes the official statement of the organization in this case, and if I can dig up some dissenters from each of the various scientific societies regarding their positions on AGW in general, would you support me in getting those put into the main GW/CC articles? Scientific opinion on climate change and Climate change consensus both come to mind since they quote those very opinions. Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC) It is clear that these scientists agree with my view (that the statement "cast doubt on the science at least as far as it speaks to the past century being anomalously warm"), taken issue with above. In fact, Dr. Hopkinson says so explicitly. "2. Item 4 specifically casts doubt on the historical temperature reconstructions based on proxy measures whilst not acknowledging that such reconstructions have been repeated by a range of research groups using a range of methodologies, as described in the IPCC 2007 report." JPatterson (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC) @GoRight: That seems like a distinction without a difference. If "worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research" then it follows that that conclusions of that research are suspect even if the raw data is not. I read the IOP statement to be an indictment of the process, not the data, but the validity of the conclusions are just as dependent on the process as they are on the data. JPatterson (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, the two are obviously related as the one affects the other. The distinction is rather like the difference between saying the resulting Climate Science conclusions could be wrong vs. saying the conclusions are wrong. I think the original IOP statement justifies the "could be wrong" statement but not the "are wrong" one. I also think that the "could be wrong" one is consistent with both of the IOP's official statements whereas the "are wrong" one is not. The point of the IOP clarification, IMHO, is merely to say that the emails themselves do not directly contradict the currently stated conclusions outright, they merely suggest that those conclusions could be wrong and so unless proven to be so via some form of re-verification they are still the official word on the topic. There's a subtlety in there somewhere.  :) --GoRight (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC) "The distinction is rather like the difference between saying the resulting Climate Science conclusions could be wrong vs. saying the conclusions are wrong." I agree completely which is why I said "casts doubt" and not "refutes" :>). But this discussion shows we need to choose our words carefully. Obviously some take "casts doubt" to mean something stronger than I intended. I think that we are all mostly in agreement that the IOP is mainly indicting the process and the article should reflect that emphasis. JPatterson (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC) The story is getting a bit more interesting, with Climate emails inquiry: Energy consultant linked to physics body's submission | Environment | The Guardian which I'm rather amused to note is front page news in today's Grauniad. Single column width, top right, next to the main story about "Lord Ashcroft faces new claims of tax avoidance". The IoP demands complete openness, but won't say who wrote the demand which rather contradicts its subsequent clarification of agreeing wholly with the significance of AGW. The main suspect runs a company offering "consultancy and management support services … particularly within the energy and energy intensive industries worldwide", and says of AGW "for many people the subject has become a religion, so facts and analysis have become largely irrelevant." This impressed an MP on the Select Committee, who said "Members of the Institute of Physics … may be concerned that the IOP is not as transparent as those it wishes to criticise." Since WP isn't news it's worth waiting for this to mature a bit, get some popcorn. . . dave souza, talk 17:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC) I'm collapsing this section as per WP:FORUM.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Climategate

Please see FAQ #5. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't wish to reopen what was clearly a long and heated discussion. However, I see that non-English versions of this page typically go by the name of climategate (or foreign language variations thereof). At the very least there should be consistency. Apologies if this point has already been raised. --Junder1234 (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC) See FAQ #1. Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I read it ; it doesn't address my point. --Junder1234 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Different language editions of Wikipedia have their own content policies (within the primacy of the neutral point of view) and are not consistent with one another or with English Wikipedia. --TS 22:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC) A neutral point of view can hardly be said to have primacy if a "loaded term" is used in a page written in one language and not in an another. --Junder1234 (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC). In other languages, the "-gate" suffix may well have considerably less of its American-English meaning. Interpretation of the NPOV may also have developed in different directions on other wikis. Possibly this may be something for discussion at Meta. --TS 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I agree with Junder1234 and I also raised the same point before. I feel you are dodging the question by pointing to NPOV. Is it reasonable to believe that the English speaking Wikipedia is superior to all other language versions? In this case it would appear more likely that the English language version is out of sync. I frequently see shortened articles translated from the English language version. This means the content is typically shorter and I end up switching to English for the details. In this case it's the other way around. I also do not know of ANY part of the world that is unfamiliar with the Watergate scandal.91.153.115.15 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC) You're confusing two uses of NPOV. My first mention of NPOV is just a historical reference to the fact that Jimbo Wales stipulates that NPOV is "non-negotiable". Junder then referred to NPOV within the context of this article's name (and NPOV has indeed figured in discussions of the article name, as Junder clearly understands when he refers to a "loaded term"). I'm not really clear whether Junder has a serious question. Yes, of course articles about any given subject in different language Wikipedias tend to have different text, predominantly prepared by different editors, and they have different names. Are we supposed to do something about that? If so, what? --TS 23:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Well I for one have the luxury of being multilingual so I occasionally read 5 or 6 different language versions of the same articles. If I find a reliable piece of information in one I try to translate it. Sometimes the translations are not perfect but it usually doesn't take long for someone else to correct my small mistakes. A certain amount of consistency is a good thing. At least the outlines should be similar. At some point the French language version of this article was preferable. Many others are shorter but well balanced. This also potentially clears up conflicting editing, done with almost religious dedication, by small groups of editors in one language version.91.153.115.15 (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Junder, I was one editor who previously pointed this out. The short answer as to why we don't call the article "Climategate" here is, there is a substantial group of editors active here who are absolutely opposed to that name. Because... well, because WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. In my view, of course. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Accusing people of engaging in disruption simply because they disagree with you is unacceptable Pete. Please retract your comment and try to assume good faith. Guettarda (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Or, perhaps they see WP:WTA as a sound and reasonable guideline, not to be tossed aside lightly for the pundit pejorative of the day. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC) We've been through this before. Without objection, it has been stated and presumptively accepted that the WP:WTA clearly states that for article titles, words which should usually be avoided may be part of the title if this is the most common name for the subject of the article. The term Climategate, as a title, satisfies the wiki policy of using the common term, and does not violate NPOV since it is descriptive only, albeit pedestrian, and does not add an imputation of scandal not previously recognized. I solicit recognition of that. Best regards, Oiler99 (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC) The problem with the title "Climategate" is that it is not generally accepted. It is similar to "homicide bomber", a term that indicates a certain point of view. People who call it "Climategate" generally believe that climate change is a hoax. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Au contraire, Climategate is generally used around the world by newspapers, magazines, and other wikipedias. The term refers merely to the scandal surrounding the revelations of inappropriate activity by those who wish to blame human activities for global climate. Climate change of course is not a hoax. The anthropogenic cause is however unproven, and more implausible with each passing day, whence the scandal. Homicide bomber is by the way a tautology, not used by thinking people outside of television studios. Suicide bomber is additive, and descriptive. Best regards, Oiler99 (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Proof is for whisky, "climategate" is a partisan label deployed by those claiming that AGW is a "hoax" or "conspiracy" and treated more cautiously or avoided by many serious sources. . . dave souza, talk 07:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Do you seriously believe that all those who use the term Climategate are convinced that AGW is a hoax or a conspiracy, rather than a simple misinterpretation of the evidence? Oiler99 (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC) While I will accept that people who use the term "climategate" believe that climate change science misinterprets the evidence and that they do not deny climate change but the anthropogenic cause, the term "climategate" is still not neutral. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC) As it has been pointed out numeous times, in policies WP:NAME and WP:NPOV, proper noun article titles should follow common usage in RS, even if that common usage is non-neutral. Even in the guideline WP:WTA (which, as a guideline, takes a subordinate position to the aforementioned policies) naming conventions allow for a title involving a -gate suffix formulation in historical cases. How many months must pass with its usage as a common title for this controversy in order to satisfy those who would use this guideline to trump policy? Moogwrench (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC) If the label is entirely partisan, why do the media in the UK and US use it so extensively? Again, we are not talking about the first few days of the story. They have latched onto and continue to use this label after months of controversy. The term "Climategate", as it is employed by the media, centers around a pattern of conduct of the UEA scientists and the public's reaction, be it positive, neutral, or negative. One can believe that UEA scientists were sloppy, unprofessional, or committed some kind of violation of FOIA (or even admit others with reasonable minds believe this) without denying that climate change is real or that it has a significant anthropogenic component. So I find the idea that Climategate is a term only employed by "climate deniers" or "climate skeptics" is belied by its common usage and acceptance as an umbrella term for this particular controversy (unlike other -gate suffix inventions for other controversies, which never were extensively used by RSs and were the exclusive domain of a specific party to their respective controversies). One can believe that the scientists acted inappropriately while still accepting the overall science behind AGW. Moogwrench (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC) At what point does this constant bleating about how the article should be called "Climategate" start to produce blocks or topic bans for tendentious disruption? Must we have the same argument over and over again? "Climategate" will never, ever be an appropriate title. Those reliable sources that make use of the word almost always use quotation marks to indicate it is not "their word", and also only use it for convenience. But you will not find a single reliable source to corroborate the legitimate use of the word to describe the theft and illegal dissemination of data from the CRU. The word is non-neutral, best avoided and non-descriptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Referring to good faith, policy-based arguments as disruptive bleating is not exactly convincing. I appreciate your opinion that it will, in your words, "never, ever be an appropriate title," but a plain language reading of the common proper noun naming conventions of both WP:NPOV and WP:NAME seem to contradict your certainty. Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Is there an good argument being presented here for why the Wikipedia:WTA#Controversy and scandal guideline should be set aside for this particular case? "Everyone else calls it that" is not one that I would call "good", however. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) "Everyone (or, at least all reliable sources) call(s) it that is" exactly what WP:NAME suggests as a reason to call it that, even if the name contains words to WP:AVOID. Now, we're not there yet, but all media do call it "Climategate"; so far, the only reliable sources using a different name are UEA and the police. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) As has been noted repeatedly, in the eleventy-billion threads we've had about this, the notion that "all media do call it 'Climategate'" is a misrepresentation of the facts. Virtually all of the mainstream media refer to the term in quoted form, distancing themselves from it and indicating at the very least that is is a neologism. The media echo chamber has been used extensively by the skeptical crowd to promote the term's use, but that doesn't change the salient facts that the term is non-descriptive and non-neutral, making it inappropriate as a Wikipedia article title. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Common proper noun names are preferable to descriptive ones made up by Wikipedians, per WP:COMMONNAME, so I don't know why you would suggest that a non-descriptive title is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. I find it hard to accept your assertion that news outlets are "distancing" themselves from a term by frequently using it their articles and reports, quotes or no quotes. Also, consensus is important, even if it does take "eleventy-billion threads" to hash it all out in the end. It sure does beat edit-warring on the article page, don't you think? Thankfully, participation in Wikipedia is voluntary; if one is tired of seeing alternative viewpoints, might I suggest a wikibreak? Moogwrench (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC) "Climategate" is non-neutral and ambiguous. Policies like WP:NPOV stomp all over guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME, so we can put that argument to bed. Also, please don't make vague, nebulous accusations of edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 1. I don't know many people who would confuse the subject of "Climategate", so I can't see how it is anymore "ambiguous" than the current title. 2. WP:COMMONNAME is a policy, not a guideline, as you erroneously state (it is a link to the WP:Article_titles#Common_names). As a side note, I have also documented how Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_titles permits the use of common, non-neutral names as "legitimate article titles," so I don't see how WP:NPOV "stomps all over" that argument. It actually supports it. 3. Celebrating discussion over revert wars is not accusing anyone of edit-warring. However, using phrases like "constant bleating" and "tendentious disruption" to refer to the talk contributions of other editors does tend to deprecate that process, don't you think? Moogwrench (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I'm quite happy with the current name as, while possibly being not the optimal name (then, what might be?), it also covers the theft aspect of the incident. My "cons" to climategate are: 1) it's kind of stupid compare to media-usage or normal talk, where you simply choose the most convenient and short name; 2) I have to agree with them here who consider "climategate" being a slightly non-neutral, colloquial name, trying to push a view that the incident is crucial to correctness of AGW 3) arguments based on some needed "consistency" with other wikis are quite funny but nothing more. 4) I can't help wondering why certain people so badly want to promote the name. And my "pros"? 1) the most used name in most connections, by my own experience 2) it somehow better describes all the hassle after the publishing of the hacked files. So, to summarize I'm against the name-change. --J. Sketter (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC) J. Sketter, just to engage you on your points that you made, take a look at what Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_an_article_title suggests are the characteristics of an ideal (or optimal, to use your word) name: 1. Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article. 2. Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). 3. Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. 4. Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.) 5. Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles. 1) Per item 4 of the article title criteria, article titles should be "concise," i.e. "a convenient and short name" in your words. "Climategate" is far more concise than the longer "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" 2) As far as neutrality goes, WP:NPOV and WP:Article titles both allow for seemingly non-neutral titles when it is the common name for that thing in RSs. Also, "Climategate" really isn't about AGW per se, it is about the scientific process and people's reaction to it. People can believe that the underlying science is good, yet find the behavior of the UEA unacceptable or not... the reaction is the notable part. 3) Per item 5 of the article title criteria, article titles ought to be "consistent," and one could argue this applies cross-wiki, if possible. 4) As to why people are promoting it: It is Recognizable, Easy to find, and Precise enough to identify its topic. It seems to fulfill all the aspects of an ideal title. The current title, in the view of the proponents of the alternative title, seems less than optimal is many of those respects. Moogwrench (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC) You were right about WP:COMMONNAME being policy, my bad. But WP:NPOV still trumps it as being second only to WP:BLP in the policy hierarchy. "Climategate" fits in with only a few of the criteria you list above. For example, it is not at all precise. It requires an understanding of the "-gate" suffix, which is largely a US-centric phenomenon. It is not consistent, in that it doesn't follow patterns found in other articles (a handful, at best) - and the cross-wiki issue is irrelevant because other versions have their own rules. But basically, it is the lack of neutrality that is the problem here. The term unforgivably adds a layer of "scandal" to what is essentially an article about data theft and its consequences by associating it with an event that wound up forcing a US president out of office. There is no reasonable comparison that can be made here. And I repeat: Bringing it up over and over again is textbook tendentiousness. If only there was a script that could automatically topic ban anyone who suggested it again. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC) You don't really think that is a good idea, do you? I mean, silencing people who disagree with you automatically? Moogwrench (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC) The -gate thing is obviously from The Watergate scandal. Are you seriously suggesting that only Americans and people in the UK now about one of the most important political scandals of the 20th century? If you say Watergate people think Nixon scandal. If you say Climategate people think Climate change/science scandal.130.232.214.10 (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC) For the umpteenth time too, WP does have a page called Climategate - it's a redirect. That's our way of saying, 'some people call it this, but not us'. That kills the 'Easy to find' argument. Most of the other arguments seem to be either 'It's POV, but I like that POV' or 'It's POV, but that doesn't matter because of sub-clause X'. --Nigelj (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Not true, actually. WP does not have a Climategate page, it has a term redirect to Email Hacking Incident page, the latter being a subset of the Climategate, encompassing perhaps 10% of the controversy. Quite misleading. Hurricane, on the other hand, generates a redirect to Tropical Cyclone, of which hurricane is a subset. Quite different. Much more appropriate would be a link on the Climategate page to the email hacking / liberation incident. Oiler99 (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Until/unless you can make your case over at WT:NPOV as to why such an article name is permitted, this is simply not going to happen, coming from a discussion in a single article's talk space. Policy can change, sure, and if you think you have case then go make it there. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC) "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" is as inappropriate as "Climategate". To date, there is no evidence that any hacking took place. Unless someone can present evidence that hacking did take place (not just allegations), the current title is inappropriate. If "climategate" can't be used because no scandal has been confirmed (only alleged), then "hacking" can't be used for the same reason.--chadhoward (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC) This argument is addressed in FAQ Q5. All reliable sources say it was an unauthorized data breach; a hacking. CRU did not deliberately leak the data, nor is there any evidence to support accidental release. --TS 00:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Neither your comment nor FAQ Q5 addresses my comment. It may be true that many or even all reliable sources say the emails were hacked. My point stands: no reliable source has detailed any evidence for the claim that the CRU emails were obtained via hacking. Do you agree? If not, please provide a source that details evidence for the claim of hacking. --chadhoward (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC) No original research. We're not Sherlock Holmes, you know. --TS 01:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC) No original research not relevant. All that is required is a published source detailing evidence of hacking. Allegations of hacking are insufficient as basis for article title, just as allegations of scandal are insufficient to warrant the use of Climategate in article title. Possible improvements to article: remove "hacking incident" from title, as no evidence yet exists that would suggest a "hacking incident" has occurred; mention the sources who have alleged that hacking occurred (CRU, etc.) and that no evidence of hacking has yet been detailed in any published source.--chadhoward (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC) I suggest that you take your quarrels with Wikipedia policy to the relevant policy pages. We go with verifiable information, and it is verifiable that the Norfolk Police, the Metropolitan Police, and the University are treating this as hacking. No reliable source is saying it's anything other than hacking. --TS 01:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC) I have no quarrel with Wikipedia policy. No original research is not relevant because I am not asking you to "publish original research or original thought... [including] unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas". I am asking you to cite a published source that details evidence of the alleged hacking incident at the CRU or consider working with me and others to change the article title. It is verifiable that the university has claimed that a hacking took place; it is verifiable that the Norfolk Police and the Metropolitan Police are conducting investigations into the alleged hacking; it is NOT verifiable that any hacking has taken place. Sticking to what is verifiable suggests avoiding the words "hacking incident" in the title. Furthermore, it is a factual contribution to the article to mention that although an investigation has been ongoing, no evidence of a hacking has yet been published. --chadhoward (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Greetings! I have little experience in regards to this, just moseyed here from another page I check every now and again. If I'm not mistaken, then what is being asked of you so as to advance this discussion is a source or multiple sources that say there is no proof of a hacking. Armed with those, people can bring this discussion better to bear. I.E. Verifiability, not truth, is what would seem to be necessary. Original research is important to avoid not only in regards with what to add, but with what to remove. If you know that happiness is the result of reactions in the brain, yet reliable sources in the page for happiness say that's not so, it is not enough to simply say they never provided proof that it's not neurological reactions. Instead, finding reliable sources that back up your assertions should help to further the discussion. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomen Omen

Please use this page to discuss how to improve the article

Scepticism, according to Diderot, is "the first step on the road to philosophy". With due respect to the Express's scientific rigour, is it appropriate, do you think, to dignify such claptrap as climate change scepticism? Or dare I use the D-word? I'm talking about D for denier, as in one who denies (to those looking for fashionable hosiery who have been directed here by typing "denier" into a search engine: you are in the wrong place). We have been discussing such terminology, and some of my colleagues have suggested that Guardian style might be amended to stop referring to "climate change deniers" in favour of, perhaps, "climate sceptics". David Marsh Mind your language - Guardian