Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

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

Template:Shell

Jimbo's suggestion on editing against one's POV

I moved this comment (below) of Jimbo's to this new section (from "Page move" section, above) so it won't be missed (I'll inform Jimbo and move it back if he's got a problem with this edit): -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add my personal and heartfelt "thanks" for the progress that has been made here. The spirit of cooperation shown in the final decision to move the page gives me hope that we might - possibly - be finally moving a bit past the spirit of harsh partisanship that has unfortunately characterized a lot of the talk page debate around this and related articles.

Wikipedia works best when people who may disagree - even strongly - decide to set aside their local partisan differences in the interest of simply getting the facts right and working very hard to achieve NPOV.

One thing I recommend to anyone who does consider themselves a partisan in this debate: spend 30 minutes imagining yourself to be a thoughtful critic of your own position, and look through the articles for things that ought to bother you - and change them. That is, make a change that is in some way "detrimental" to what you would argue for, were you here to write a polemical essay to persuade someone. It's not really easy, but it's worth doing, if for no other reason than to help convince yourself of the humanity of those with whom you have a disagreement.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is an extremely good idea. I've done a bit of it before in Obama-related articles. It helps give the editor who's doing it a better perspective and it tends to increase trust among editors. Since my own POV on this subject is that the scientists said some very suspicious things in the e-mails and yet I agree with their overall position on the science of climate change, I'll try to make edits contrary to both of those points in the next day or two (not sure what they'll be yet). The more difficult you find this kind of thing to do, the more helpful you'll find it to your own understanding as well as in helping to clean up the atmosphere here. If you were the only one editing this article, you would want to represent the opinions of all major sides to the controversy, so you'd make that kind of edit anyway. There are certainly improvements that could be made to this article from the POV of any side. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Something else that might be worth trying is to bring in editors who have no strong opinions one way or the other, just laypeople previously uninvolved. Just choose some editors by lot and ask them to participate. But here's the problem: In an article like this, the complexity is such that it's easy to be manipulated one way or the other. It's like when a complex business case is tried by jury. In my case I'm genuinely aloof from all the issues and just happened to see this on the Jimbo talk page. However, all the complex and heated discussion is simply intimidating, if understandable.ScottyBerg (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A key issue, which I think Jimbo has overlooked or at least hasn't mentioned as far as I've seen, is that there have been no findings of wrongdoing against any of the individuals involved. Indeed, the only enquiry to have been completed so far - that of Penn State University into Michael Mann - exonerated him. There have been no findings of any kind about the quality of the CRU's scientific research. However, there has been a huge amount of frenzied rhetoric and accusations - here on this talk page, we've seen the scientists being denounced as "criminals" [sic] - and numerous people have spoken, like JWB, of their "suspicions" about what the e-mails said. But in the interests of basic fairness, to say nothing of BLP, we cannot use this article in the way that far too many people have attempted to use it, as a platform for denouncing the scientists and falsely presenting climate science as undermined or disproved. "Getting the facts right" is exactly the right approach to take, and I think we've done a pretty good job of it overall; but the key to that is making a distinction between facts that have been established and speculation that has not. Too often (and it's regrettable that Jimbo of all people has been guilty of this), editors have treated speculation as being as equal to facts. The key thing here is to keep an open mind, avoid speculation and not make assumptions that may be disproved in the near future. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We absolutely must correctly describe the nature of the UEA investigations. The notion that some awful evidence of wrongdoing has been disclosed is wrong. We cannot say--and should not speculate on--what the investigations will turn up. We will know the facts in due course. Pretending that we know what will happen is wrong. --TS 23:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo never said anything about "falsely presenting climate science as undermined or disproved" nor did Jimbo say anything about "pretending that we know" "what the investigations will turn up." Nor am I aware of any current editor including such claims in the article. The fact that the scandal is ongoing doesn't mean we have to wait until it's over to explain what it is about anymore than we have to wait for the Arab-Israeli conflict to end to write an article about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony and Chris and A Quest, you've been invited to improve the article in a way totally the opposite of your individual points of view but consistent with bettering the article. We are all capable of doing that. I'll do that (and I expect to edit in ways consistent with the points Tony and Chris and A Quest have just expressed). Will you do the same? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

False dichotomy. I've always sought to edit the article in ways consistent with bettering it, regardless of my opinion of the situation. I'm sure Tony has done the same. I'm not so sure about AQFK, given that he's already declared the scientists involved to be "criminals" (I must have missed the charges, trial and convictions - would you care to tell us when this happened?). -- ChrisO (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It can't be a "false dichotomy" to suggest that we all do some editing of the article in ways that go against our own personal points of view. You say that you've done so. Please provide examples. You say that TS has done so. Perhaps we could have examples of that. It really should not be so difficult to do this kind of thing if the first thing we're all committed to here is an NPOV result. I really want the subject of this thread to avoid being buried with side issues, so I'm going to hat off-topic comments or move them out of the thread. This isn't about the past, it's about going forward, so your comments to AQFK are irrelevant to the point at hand. Nor have you answered Jimbo's invitation or my question: Will you make some edits that reflect opposite POVs of your own? This question is not just for ChrisO, but for anyone reading this. Will you all do so? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stick to WP:NPA. Also, note that the opinion you are faulting AQFK for holding is shared by the ICO (citationcitation).--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a perfect example of what Jimbo is talking about. As this story makes clear, the ICO has said only that "the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here" (note the conditional wording) but it can't investigate any further or come to any conclusion because the statutory time limit has passed. The UEA has pointed out 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." The issue of whether FOI requests weren't properly handled is one of the matters before the Muir Russell enquiry, which has not yet reached any conclusions on the issue. Needless to say, this is a very long way from saying that the scientists were "criminals". But you wouldn't know this if you spent your time reading the anti-science blogs, which have all trumpeted this as proof that a crime was committed - a conclusion that nobody, including the ICO, has reached. This is exactly what Jimbo is referring to by "getting the facts right" - stating accurately what is reported by reliable sources, without partisan misrepresentation. Remember, these are living people we're talking about: high-profile, distinguished scientists, leaders in their field, whose reputation is being attacked by those with an ideological and/or financial interest in discrediting their research. As WP:BLP makes clear, we have a responsibility to ensure that their situation is not being misrepresented. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting surreal. ChrisO, Jimbo specifically referred to you - by name - in his post.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a point to this remark? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoosh! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it that means "no". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It means that it went over your head. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more explicit than "Whoosh" if your arguments are not being understood by others (myself included). StuartH (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The post that Jimbo was responding to was where ChrisO launched into a rant about "anti-science activists and sundry right-wingers"[7]

"It's getting attention primarily because it's an absolute obsession among anti-science activists and sundry right-wingers."

To which Jimbo responded[8]:

"I think this idea, ChrisO, may be preventing you from really understanding what is going on with this article. The truth is that many people who are both pro-science and not "sundry right-wingers" are quite rightly disappointed at the conduct shown in those emails."

The point that Jimbo was making was that just because someone is concerned about the conduct of these scientists doesn't make you "anti-science" or a "sundry right-winger". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, I'm sure you believe you are editing fairly, but your continued use of descriptions such as "anti-science" demonstrates that you are not as neutral as you think. I have largely avoided editing this article because my POV would interfere too much; I would urge you to consider similar restraint. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Chris, you have twice reverted my attempts to keep these off-topic comments from the thread about Jimbo's suggestion to edit in ways against one's personal POV. You're last revert's edit summary was "rm silly header, it's directly related". Yet I can find nothing in these comments between Heyitspeter's of 10:53 and yours just above at 14:58 that has anything to do with the suggestion Jimbo made at 01:10, 27 March about editing against personal POV. The title of this section from the start has been "Jimbo's suggestion". Instead of commenting on the suggestion, you've commented on other things. By insisting on keeping these off-topic comments in the thread, you are attempting to hijack discussion and being disruptive. I am trying to keep one discussion on track. That doesn't prevent you from discussing unrelated or even somewhat related points in a different discussion. Please allow the discussion on a subject that you don't seem to want to directly participate in to continue. If you can show how your comments relate to anything in Jimbo's 01:10 comment, do so -- but your 14:58 comment seems to be about as unrelated to Jimbo's as it can possibly be. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not at all - you seem to have completely misread what I wrote. My very first line at 11:44 noted that Jimbo emphasized "getting the facts right". Heyitspeter inadvertently provided an example of getting the facts wrong by misrepresenting a source. I used that example to demonstrate what needs to be done to "get the facts right" - "stating accurately what is reported by reliable sources, without partisan misrepresentation." Since my comments specifically referred to Jimbo's original suggestion, it's hardly off-topic. The point I was making is that you don't necessarily need to "edit against your own POV" - what matters is getting the facts right, not worrying about whether you personally agree with the facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• The problem with your response, ChrisO, is that you ignored everything else Jimbo said other than the four words "get the facts right". The point was, very obviously, to work with others, as can be seen in all three paragraphs of what he said, down to the final words. Nothing wrong with discussing the facts, of course. One fact not in the article is that there is an ICO investigation of a Section 50 complaint now ongoing. Another fact: this case is one reason why ICO officials want to suggest changes to FOIA laws, and the chairman of the parliamentary committee investigating the CRU incident also thinks the matter should be looked at. I could add all this to the article, but I'd much rather give you the opportunity to respond to the rest of Jimbo's comment by acting on his suggestion to edit from the other side. You'd also be helping the encyclopedia to "get the facts right". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that I have a strong point of view on the subject of this article. As I expect my point of view to be vindicated by the Pennsylvania investigation, the two East Anglia investigations, the police investigations and all other investigations, however, I don't see much reason to edit the article until such time as those investigations report, and indeed when they do I fully expect those findings to go into the article without controversy. I'm content to leave the bulk of the task of keeping Wikipedia up to date on the investigations to others, and as I've remarked elsewhere I think those editors, together, have done a superb job and produced an article of which Wikipedia can be proud.

Most of the speculative nonsense has either been kept out of the article or treated in an encyclopedic manner, and I'm confident that this practice will continue. I think the article has probably become easier to edit as the subject has become much less of a hot topic over the months and the news coverage has become slightly more accurate.

I think Jimbo's suggestion is a generally good one. I think many editors are already following it, if only by refraining from making the kind of contentious edit that used to be so common on this article. As a result we have an article whose balanced tone and concentration on the facts is admirable. --TS 15:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

TS, Jimbo's "generally good" suggestion is not followed simply by refraining from making contentious edits. You know that. If you decline to do so, that's certainly your prerogative, and no one should pressure you on it. Your point of view has not been "vindicated" by one investigating authority, the ICO, on one point, however: Graham Smith, the deputy commissioner, said: 'The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence [of the U.K. Freedom of Information Act] may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter. (News report in The Times [9], ICO statement: The emails 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. further information here [10] ) [11]) This is one example of an element of this article that you or someone else with your POV could add that would improve the article in a way contrary to your POV. (It could be used to beef up what's in the first paragraph of the "Other responses" section.) If you or anyone else with your POV would improve this article by doing so, it would tend to help the person doing it and help the atmosphere here, because there's no better way to show that it's more important that the article be fair than that it reflect one's own POV. You certainly haven't refrained from improving the article in other ways, and I see you've just been doing it now, so you know it isn't perfect. Using phrases like "speculative nonsense" lowers trust and hurts a constructive atmosphere, doing so in a thread about trying to improve the atmosphere is an example of the problem. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• John, you may have missed the point that the ICO is not an investigating authority in this case. There is no ICO investigation because the matter falls outside the statutory time limit for such an investigation. It has not reached any firm conclusions (note the use of "may have been in the statement you cited). I dealt with this in my comment of 11:44 above. The article already covers the ICO's statement and the UEA's response. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• since it cannot now investigate the matter. The time limit appears to apply to complaints under section 77 of the FOIA, not section 50. What do you suppose this means: In the present case, the section 50 complaint has not yet been fully investigated and there will be exchanges of correspondence between the ICO and UEA as those investigations progress. Unless there is agreement on an informal resolution, a decision notice will be issued. The process is likely to take some months. [...] We will, of course, be following up on the section 50 complaints in due course. This was from a letter from Graham Smith, deputy ICO commissioner, to Brian Summers of the University of East Anglia, from the UEA's website. [12] I can tell you that one thing I have missed, despite searching for it on the Web, is an explanation of just what section 50 is and how it differs from section 77. The first paragraph in the letter I quote from may or may not indicate an answer to that, but I'm still a bit puzzled. In any event, it appears the ICO involvement here is not at an end. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, here it is. [13] Section 50 is the appeals process from complaints about a public authority. The deputy ICO commissioner says that process is now under way. It's an investigation. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here's an edit partly against my POV that I'm suspicious of Mann and the other scientists. [14] It partly confirms my POV as well, but I think the major element is against it. I'll be doing more later. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

John, you seem to presume to know my opinion, falsely claiming that the ICO has not "vindicated" it. Stop that. I have formed no opinion on the data protection matter because I do not have adequate information. As far as I can tell the ICO matter is fully and accurately reported in the article. --TS 16:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the critical point is that the ICO can't "vindicate" the UEA, nor can it "convict" it, since it cannot now investigate the matter. As you say, Tony, the article already reflects this fact accurately. This sort of misunderstanding is the core of my earlier point - that "editing against your POV" is secondary to the issue of getting your facts right. Jimbo's advice seems to imply that the problems we've had with this article have been due to editors not "editing against their POV". I'd say that the problem has been more to do with editors getting facts wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been a fair amount of "getting facts wrong", but I think that's to be expected on articles related to climate change. People show up at talk:global warming with all manner of misunderstandings, surprised to find that that those "facts" are not in the article.

In the early days of this article too, there was so much nonsense on blogs that people would regularly come here to "correct" our facts. This, for John's benefit, is what I was referring to as "speculative nonsense". There is some of that still, with people making highly questionable interpretations of the ICO's statement (both those erring in favor of and those erring against the UEA). I think we get it right, and we should be proud of the fact that we do get it right so often. --TS 16:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be hard to characterize the following as mere "speculative nonsense" involving "highly questionable interpretations of the ICO's statement", since it comes from Graham Smith, deputy commissioner of same, later backed up by a letter on ICO stationery from him to the University of East Anglia, from a reliable, third-party source: In a statement, Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, [UK government's Information Commissioner’s Office] said: “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.” He added: “The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. We will be advising the university about the importance of effective records management and their legal obligations in respect of future requests for information.” So, what we have here is that the subject of this article has contributed to the ICO's determination to propose srengthening FOIA law because the statements in the e-mails are "prima facie" evidence of intent to violate the law as interpreted by the deputy commissioner of the ICO (indeed, Graham says here, The prima facie evidence from the disclosed e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by defeating information. It's hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence. [...] In the event, the matter cannot be taken forward because of the statutory time limit. [15]). I hope you don't think it is speculative nonsense for Wikipedia to cover what prominent ICO officials are saying about this on ICO stationery and in statements to reliable sources. It isn't there now in the "Reactions" section. It is an important reaction, after all. It would be such an improvement in the atmosphere around here if an editor who was expecting complete vindication of the scientists would add this to the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I missed some of this. Much of this is already there in the "Reactions" section, although the back-and-forth between what the university, Graham and the committee chairman said is trivial. The points I've made here are the important ones. That and the fact that the ICO is continuing an investigation of the incident under Section 50 of the law, as Graham's letter (linked above) states. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

John, I've no doubt that you mean well, but you seem to be going out of your way to characterize the statements of others, myself included, in a manner that cannot be accounted for by reference to our actual statements. Now it appears that you have been basing your assessment of the article largely on your own imagination rather than a reading of the article itself. Above you falsely claim that I am describing facts as "speculative nonsense". Again, please stop. --TS 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe this can be accounted for by reference to your actual statement, because it's cut and pasted from it: As far as I can tell the ICO matter is fully and accurately reported in the article. --TS 16:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Yet we don't say that ICO is investigating under Section 50. We don't say that ICO officials are asking for the FOI law to be changed in part because of this case, and we don't say that Phil Willis, chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, which is investigating, has said Given the seriousness of this issue, the fact that it has caused global consternation, and has given ammunition to the climate sceptics – to have such a serious breach and for there to be no recourse in law requires urgent attention by the government. [16] Also, The notion that some awful evidence of wrongdoing has been disclosed is wrong. [...] --TS 23:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Yet Graham Smith, deputy commissioner of the ICO, calls the statements in some of the CRU e-mails strong prima facie evidence of violations of the discosure law. That's in the article. Did you not read it? The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter. [17] Smith also said, Mr. Holland's FOI requests [...] were not dealt with in accordance with the [FOI] Act. [18] Is this accurate? Fact based? Is this not some of the most important information out there about this subject? It certainly isn't in the article. And do you think it helps or hurts us keep cool and come to consensus when you say Now it appears that you have been basing your assessment of the article largely on your own imagination. Apparently you're not catching everything in the article either. It doesn't seem like the article is just so complete that it couldn't use this information. Perhaps someone who thought that no evidence of wrongdoing had been disclosed might want to add some of the reaction I've just mentioned here to the passage where Mr. Smith characterizes some of the emails as hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence of an FOIA violation. Am I imagining it all? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've now cleaned up that section a bit. I know it's easy to lose site of the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia when there is so much politicking going on at the talkpage, but it's generally true that anyone can edit. You've obviously read the material and gathered the sources needed to cite the narrative you want to see included. That's the hard part, after which you can just start editing away. I wouldn't say this if it was just you. Many people are coming to the talkpage with complaints about mischaracterizations in the article page, which is just to create a middleman. Check out the changes I made and add your own if you see fit--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone said: Jimbo's "generally good" suggestion is not followed simply by refraining from making contentious edits. You know that.

I think I disagree with that. A better way of putting what Jimbo says is as follows: it is the essence of good scholarship to avoid overstating the facts, and looking at the wording from different points of view is part of that.

I think Jimbo's formulation, though common on Wikipedia, is over-clumsy and capable of misinterpretation. A contentious edit is one that somebody else will encounter problems with. We're seeing fewer of those as time goes on, which is to be expected. --TS 16:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

His concrete suggestion was to edit against your POV where that would improve the article. That increases trust because it's something concrete rather than an airy statement of NPOV purpose that others with a different POV may see as either insincere or deluded. It's hard to see either of those things if you actually demonstrate your NPOV principles with concrete edits to the article. Since NPOV is interpreted differently by people with different POVs, what's clumsy is to constantly argue for your own POV, complain about the other side's lack of NPOV editing and leave it to the other side to put in information that goes against your POV. It's too easy to fool yourself into thinking you're favoring an NPOV everybody can agree on when you're really only projecting your side's view of what an NPOV article would look like -- a view (usually sincere and usually interpreted as insincere) that is opposed to the other side's view of what an NPOV article would look like. If you edit contrary to your own POV you demonstrate open-mindedness in a way that's hard for the other side to ignore. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who get's the feeling this how long discussion is an example of what Jimbo was hoping we avoid? Okay there are some decent points made and some genuine attempts by bothall sides to engage each other in meaningful discussion but I'm also seeing a lot of the stuff which I'm guessing JW was hoping we avoid Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's an unproductive discussion if we're left with the view that editing for or against one's point of view is what Wikipedia is about. It's about, as Jimbo says, getting the facts right and presenting them in a way that commands consensus. Inserting one's point of view into articles isn't ever acceptable. --TS 19:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

if we're left with the view that editing for or against one's point of view is what Wikipedia is about. Tony, why not address arguments rather than mischaracterize them? Wildly exaggerating achieves nothing. You've said the article is rather good now, but I've demonstrated that the ICO is investigating the CRU and that information is not now in the article. Since you want to get the facts right, and since you're not shy about editing the article, please feel free to add the information. That would work under both the reasons I've put forth and the ones you have. Inserting one's point of view into articles isn't ever acceptable. Nonsense. If it helps an article achieve balance it's always acceptable, even necessary. Just as inserting the POV opposed to your own is sometimes necessary to achieve NPOV. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think a fact is missing please add it. --TS 20:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Frederick Burr Opper's Alphonse and Gaston

I wouldn't dream of precluding you or someone who largely shares your POV from having the honor of fixing it yourself (or himself or herself or themselves). I think this is a golden opportunity you should not pass up. I'll give you 24 hours to reap the glory. Go on, swoop it up. Be my guest. I can see the barnstars shining now. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Inserting one's point of view into articles isn't ever acceptable" But that's exactly what's going on, isn't it? Both sides think they can override reliable sources by adding and giving undue emphasis to the content that expresses their POV while downplaying or removing content that's against their POV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is a helpful characterization of the situation. In the past three months, since I was regularly involved in editing the article. the article seems to have been edited well and in keeping with project goals. There is still a little friction on the talk page but as far as I can tell it hasn't harmed the article quality. I think it's better if we think less about "sides" here, because obviously we're now nearly all agreed on the facts and we nearly all agree on how to present them. The content is stable and has been for a couple of months now, and it's being updated according to the unfolding of events. I'm very happy with the way things are going and you should all be proud of the work you've done. A little less bickering and talking about "sides" would help. ---TS 20:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this [19] adequately responds to TS's point. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's usually best to avoid suggestions that there are two sides and it's something I usually try to avoid but unfortunately failed to in this instance but I've modified my comment now. However there clearly is a strong degree of partisianship as JW mentioned even if it doesn't mean there are two distinct sides. Many people do have their own strong existing POVs and these are clearly part of the problem. And this article has clearly has continous problems, for example it took us until now to change the title despite widespread disastisfaction for a long time for quite a number of editors familiar with policy. And even then it was far from unanimous even if we achieved consensus.

And there are often comments which skirt the line of failing to WP:AGF from all sides including in this very topic (one of the reasons why I made my comment in the first place). I admit I've never really understood that. While there are people who come with bad intentions, a lot of the time people genuinely want to improve the encylopaedia, perhaps they're letting their own POV, misunderstanding of policy etc get in the way and so they may not be actually helping and may indeed be causing problems but it doesn't mean they don't believe they are improving even if they are seriously wrong. Note that none of this means we haven't made significant progress.

BTW, a key part of what I believe JW was suggesting that is IMHO being missed by some in this topic is that it's not simply a matter of being willing to include something that is 'against your POV'. I'm sure most people are willing to do so. Rather the problem is that people let their own POV get in the way and so miss problems (or sometimes make unnecessary mountains out of molehills) and therefore even if they are willing they rarely actually do it. I myself avoid articles relating to the Palestianian-Israeli conflict partially because I'm not confident I can avoid my own POV getting in the way (along with a host of other reasons).

What Jimbo was suggesting is similar to the ideas expressed in the essay Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent and is also somewhat similar to some common idioms/ideas, e.g. walking a kilometre in someone else's shoes. Note that saying your able to put aside your POV is great in theory, in reality it's very difficult for us humans to actually do so therefore it's helpful to actively try to see it from someone else's POV rather then just trying to approach the matter neutrally.

P.S. I earlier modified Tony Sidaway's comment by accident, I think from a drag and drop cut and paste/insert (I didn't realise it happened hence why I didn't revert it so I'm only guessing but I do do that on occasion so it's the most likely scenario). I apologise for any confusion this may have caused and thank Dave Souza for informing me and giving me the opportunity to rectify this mistake.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's clear from the discussions about the article title that a lot of editors simply don't get WP:NPOV. But more than that, how often do you see editors writing for the opponent? Quite honestly, I think I'm the only regular editor who does this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

While I've agreed with a number of your edits and feel you have sometimes shown signs of 'editing for the opponent', I would be careful about making statements like 'Quite honestly, I think I'm the only editor who does'. Whether true or not it comes across as unnecessary boasting that could easily lead to disputes over whether it's true (this isn't after all an arbcom election or adminship candacy or even RFC or RFA where such explanation or defence of your editing history is to be expected) and is also likely to be offensive to anyone else who feels like they're 'writing for the opponent'. Of course it is something that is hard to do, for example the person who started that essay has been accused of often not following it himself and had various problems (which lead to a resignation as a bureaucrat and later admin, two RFCs and two arbcom cases leading to probation). Not everyone even agrees with the idea of course although obviously I do feel it can be a useful exercise since as I've mentioned on contentious issues like this most people have an existing POV and no matter how hard they may try, it can be difficult to put it aside so actively trying to see it from another POV rather then from no POV can be beneficial. Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nil Einne, if you've ever seen an edit from me that only expresses a single POV, it's only because the other POV was already included in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Bias permeates nearly every page of Wikipedia. The fact that such a little topic has resulted in an inordinate amount of discussion, with the skeptics of Global Warming needing to scrape and fight, tooth and nail for every micro-change is proof of the systematic bias. This is ridiculous. 75.150.245.244 (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's because Wikipedia doesn't have an effective dispute resolution system. This is an article that should take a few days to write, not 4 months. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Muddle over ICO "press statement"

Early in a long sequence of edits, HiP removed the significant point that the ICO gave information to the press without notifying the university, and divorced the UEA's submission to the select committee from the content of that submission, calling it "a statement to Parliament" as though it was something different.[20] Much later, he misrepresented a source to misdescribe the ICO's original letter as though it was a new letter "that reemphasized its earlier press statement".[21] and then in the next edit moved the UEA's submission into the paragraph with his misstatement about "a statement to Parliament" with the edit summary For future editors: I believe the sentence I'm here moving should be deleted per WP:Notability (of course the UEA denies wrongdoing. that's uninteresting).[22] I find it astonishing to suggest not showing that the university has issued a defence explaining the case. We could revert this whole muddle to the earlier concise version, but as such mistaken interpretations seem possible it may be better to review and clarify the section. . . dave souza, talk 09:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dave Souza, to address your points successively: (1) I do not see the 'without notifying the UEA' bit as notable, but feel free to readd it. (2) "a statement to Parliament" and "a submission to the select committee" are roughly synonymous, as the select committee was a part of Parliament. I do not see this as misleading. You can change it to your "submission..." version if you like. I have no objections to (1)-(2) mainly due to their triviality/inconsequentiality. (3) A somewhat careful reading of the citation should make it clear that the letter under discussion was different from the original. (4) I'd like you to remove the rest of your comment (from 'and then in the next edit' down) which consisted of an off-topic personal attack and WP:AGF violation, as per: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive4#Comment_refactoring. That covers all of the concerns you raise here, but feel free to bring more to my and our attention. Thank you. --Heyitspeter (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I take it from this response that you're happy to see the university's response being properly explained? I'm glad to assume that your lack of interest in their response is overcome, and was unintentional, so strike that aspect of my previous comment. The previous version avoided going beyond news reposts, but with the information now available, a clearer picture is emerging, so we can improve this section. Firstly, the source currently used quotes the the ICO’s letter of 29 January 2010 which confirmed the ICO’s previous statement, i.e. the "press statement" which only seems to have been given to one or more newspapers, and doesn't appear on the ICO's Press releases page. You seem to have taken the second paragraph of the news report as referring to a second letter, but that's not whant the news report says. Will look at clarifying that for a start. . . dave souza, talk 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What defense is that, exactly? A statement that they didn't do it? My 'lack of interest' has not been overcome and was not unintentional (whatever that means). I continue to be very uninterested in the fact that the UEA stated, again, that they did not commit a crime, and I believe that this information should not be included in the article as per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:UNDUE. However, I also do not mind including it, as demonstrated in the edit you cite wherein I moved the sentence to a position of prominence and did not delete it. You appear to be a victim of what we in the biz call the Hostile media effect. If you do want to argue for the sentence's inclusion (note that you do not have to), please provide us with arguments that consist of more than just confused sarcasm and baiting. (I've taken the liberty of removing the personal attack in lieu of striking it.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on, HiP, you know perfectly well that NPOV requires both points of view to be represented. That means that the university's response to the ICO's comments must be included. Following NPOV is not optional. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO that NPOV requires that we have a response. I think it's important -- not at all WP:UNDUE -- to have the university's defense of itself, but the article should not bog down into the university's description of Smith's letter and some MP criticizing the university on its description. That part should be removed. This is a much better statement from the university that we can use in that place instead:[23]

UEA's vice-chancellor, Professor Edward Acton, said : "Given that the stakes for humanity are so high in correctly interpreting the evidence of global warming, we would [...] urge scientists, academics, journalists and public servants to resist the distortions of hearsay evidence or orchestrated campaigns of misinformation, and instead to encourage open, intelligent debate."

I think that's one of the best comments put out by the university on this. We could shorten it by starting the quote with "[W]e would" -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Your characterization of WP policy is false. Review WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTABILITY.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither of which is remotely applicable to this case because we're talking about one party's response to another party's comments about that first party. It's hard to imagine what could be more relevant. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisO and JohnWBarber. Relevance has nothing to do with WP:NOTABILITY and WP:UNDUE. --Heyitspeter (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, would be happy to see the university's response properly explained as an attempt to obfuscate ICO's findings of a "prima facia" case that UEA violated section 77, and that the letter's referring to "private E-mails" does not necessarily reflect anything in an ICO statement. (The ICO letter said "evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure ....") But there were two letters from UEA to ICO, and one or more submissions from UEA to the select committee. The timeline for that section needs more work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)the significant point that the ICO gave information to the press without notifying the university -- Dave souza, I don't understand why that point is important enough to include in the article. I'm wondering if readers would really care about that. I do think it's all right to have a quote from the university about not violating the FOIA. I can't even follow the description of whether or not one statement to Parliament from the university is part of another statement or not -- I don't see why we should care about that. By the way, I also don't think there's any reason to get into the details of what the university said to Parliament and when and how that differed from what the ICO's Graham Smith said -- it's basically trivial. I don't care whether or not the university put its own spin on Smith's statement and 99.9 percent of our readers won't, either.

I'd rewrite the whole thing this way (although, again, a quote from the university after the first sentence would be fine by me). My version includes the information that the ICO is currently investigating the university under Section 50 (I'd held off making the edit, hoping someone who thinks the scientists probably did nothing wrong would edit for the other side on this, but if it's up for discussion anyway, here's the version I'd written up already):

CURRENT VERSION:

With reference to freedom of information requests made by an individual, the Deputy Information Commissioner with responsibility for the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), Graham Smith, issued a statement which was published on 27 January 2010; "The emails 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 Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information." The deputy commissioner stated that the ICO could not currently prosecute due to statute of limitations restrictions, but was looking into other time-barred investigations to see if a case could be made to change the relevant law.

In its submission to the Science and Technology Select Committee, the university denied allegations that it had refused to release raw data in breach of the FOIA. The UEA said in a statement to Parliament that a letter it had received from the ICO showed that no breach of the law had been established, with the ICO statement only referring to prima facie evidence, and that Mr. Holland's request at issue concerned private e-mails. The ICO responded with a letter that reemphasized its earlier press statement: "the prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence." Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, stated that it would be unwise for the university to attempt to portray the ICO's letter in a positive light, as the correspondence would be examined by the Committee. When the UEA was asked to clarify on their representation of the letter, they stated that the point being made in their submission was 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."

PROPOSED VERSION:

With reference to freedom of information requests made by an individual, the Deputy Information Commissioner with responsibility for the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), Graham Smith, issued a statement which was published on 27 January 2010; "The emails 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 Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information."

In its submission to the Science and Technology Select Committee, the university denied allegations that it had violated the FOIA in refusing to release raw data. Smith wrote in a January 29, 2010 letter to a University of East Anglia official that "the prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence." Although Section 77 no longer applies in the CRU case, a complaint against the University under Section 50 of the FOIA was under investigation by the ICO, Smith wrote: "In the present case, the section 50 complaint has not yet been fully investigated and there will be exchanges of correspondence between the ICO and UEA as those investigations progress. Unless there is agreement on an informal resolution, a decision notice will be issued. The process is likely to take some months." Phil Willis, chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, called Smith's statement about the alleged violation of FOIA regulations "an extremely serious charge," He said both the select committee and Russell's panel would investigate the matter.

Graham said the ICO was "gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law." Willis said, "Given the seriousness of this issue, the fact that it has caused global consternation, and has given ammunition to the climate sceptics—to have such a serious breach and for there to be no recourse in law requires urgent attention by the government."

REFERENCES

I think it's important enough to add to the article that (1) the ICO is looking into the matter under Section 50 while Section 77 can no longer apply, and that the matter will take months to resolve and even then may result in an informal resolution; (2) this case is part of what's prompting the ICO to suggest changes in FOIA legislation, (3) the chairman of the parliamentary committee investigating this thinks the current gap in the law "requires urgent attention by the government" and (4) calls Smith's assessment of the alleged violation "an extremely serious charge". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not averse to discssing the Section 50 issue but consider the current version with the edits I've made is more accurate and clearer regarding the sequence and implications of the Section 77 info. Are you sure that "looking into the matter" is an accurate description? The ICO letter of 22 January says they will be "following up on the section 50 complaints in due course." Note also that the ICO Memorandum to the select committee describes how "An amendment to section 77 to extend the time limit for prosecutions was debated in the House of Lords in July 2009 at the Report Stage of the Coroners and Justice Bill." and at that date there was a request for examples to show any systemic problems caused by the 6 month time set by the Magistrates Act. It also appears that there's not yet been a prosecution under Section 77, more on that later.

It's worth noting that the uni state that the ICO statement was given to a journalist on on 22 January 2010,[24] the press reports appeared on 27 January 2010 as stated previously. The correspondence which the uni released here includes their letter of 29 January and the ICO's letter in reply of the same date. That's the ICO letter of 29 January 2010 which the newspaper discusses: that letter also notes that the ICO statement of 22 January (punlished 27 January) was "put out in response to persisted enquiries from the Sunday Times journalist, Mr Leake." That's something that should really appear in the first para on the topic, will consider how to word it. . . dave souza, talk 19:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading your proposal, it looks not too bad on the section 50 issue, but that really has to be seen as a separate paragraph once the section 77 stuff has been clarified. The cases are distinct, because while section 77 prosecutions can be taken to a magistrates court, apparently by the ICO or the public prosecutor (with a maximum fine of £5,000 against individuals), the section 50 finding on a complaint, if finding the public authority at fault, results in a notice under section 52 to the authority giving instructions, and it's only if the authority fails to meet these instructions that the ICO "may certify failure to the court. The court may inquire into the matter and, after hearing witnesses or any statement on behalf of the public authority, deal with the authority as if it had committed a contempt of court."[25] So, a process there before sanctions. . . dave souza, talk 19:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec with below):::You're demonstrating to me that you know much more about this process than I do, so if you want to rewrite, please do. As long as (a) there are not too many details in the passage that are unimportant (I guess we all have our own ideas on that) and (b) the information I pointed out as important is provided to the readers, and (c) the version reads clearly, then I'm satisfied with any wording -- tinker with mine, or rewrite it any way you'd like. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement about the statute of limitations having expired is important because it establishes the reason for re-assessment (and intent to change) existing laws. Beyond retaining it's inclusion in some form, I think the brunt of John's proposed version is reasonable. Additionally, it meets the standard formatting requirements for a wikipedia article related to global warming. That is to say, it's needlessly wordy and 99% of casual readers will instantly tune it all out (if they bother to feign reading through all of it). However, the last passage could certainly be trimmed down to:

Willis stated, "...to have such a serious breach and for there to be no recourse in law requires urgent attention by the government." According to Graham, the ICO has begun gathering evidence to support the case for changing the law.

and still properly convey the relevant information.
--K10wnsta (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

**Addendum: Rereading my post, it occurs to me that the 'needlessly wordy...' statement could be construed as a knock against John's effort to improve the existing passages. Banish the thought. I am well aware he's simply doing what he can to get some lipstick on a...well, I understand he's working with what he's got and appreciate his effort.
--K10wnsta (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec with above) I don't mind cutting back on the wording in the least (with the caveat I'm about to mention). No offense taken, K10wsta. The reason I used the final Smith quote, however, was to point out that this controversy appears to be one of the reasons the ICO wants to change the FOIA law, or at least it will be used as evidence for the argument to change the law. If that idea (with its nuances) can be preserved, I don't care whether or not it's in a quote (although I'm not sure the quote isn't the quickest way to say it). As I reread it, the final Willis quote is pretty wordy and I think your version is much better (I slapped mine together pretty fast), although (style point here) the quote should start: "[T]o have such a serious -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How about we combine all the passages, reword 'em, shuffle 'em around, give 'em a swift kick in the ass, cut out all the extraneous prattle and bureaucratic hoobajoo, and emerge from the ordeal with something like:

Phil Willis, chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, said "Given the seriousness of this issue...to have such a serious breach and for there to be no recourse in law requires urgent attention by the government." The Deputy Information Commissioner responsible for the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), Graham Smith, said the ICO could not currently prosecute due to statute of limitations restrictions but has started gathering evidence to support a case for changing the law.

--K10wnsta (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Brief and witty, but out of sequence as Smith made his "statement" long before Willis chipped in, and the comment by Willis is an interim comment by a politician rather than the outcome of the select committee inquiry he's chairing. Liable to revision as facts emerge. As an aside, there's a strong case for a prosecution to be brought to enable Jones to present a defence and at worst face a £5000 fine, the prima facie case is, according to the Guardian, based on this (illicitly obtained) email which suggests deleting emails, but does not state or show that they actually deleted any. . . dave souza, talk 21:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Therefore the ICO Section 50 investigation, I suppose. One reason I like both the Smith and Willis quotes is that they establish how important this matter is, a value beyond the purposes of this particular section. There have been some comments on this page knocking the idea that this whole controversy is important at all. I think it's valuable to have high officials involved in lawmaking -- especially the chairman of a committee looking into this matter and a high official of the ICO -- saying this controversy should help change the law. That they both use the word "serious" concerning the treatment of the FOIA requests is also important. Dave, the "politician" is tasked with both chairing the committee looking into aspects of this controversy and his voice may be influential in changing the law. Quoting him, or at least getting his views in there, seems particularly apt. When his committee issues a report, it will certainly be important to the article. In contrast, I don't see this as important enough to remain:

Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, told The Times that it would be unwise for the university to attempt to portray the ICO's letter in a positive light, as the correspondence would be examined by the Committee. The UEA told the newspaper that the point being made in their submission was 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."[51]

I think we have bigger fish to fry than this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that in principle, though haven't had time yet to check details, but note that Evan Harris is also on the committee. Both seem to be Liberals, with an election approaching it'll be interesting to see how this develops. They're unlikely to gain power, but may have more sway than usual if it's a hung parliament. Even without being in the ruling party, their decisions will be important to this, but these are clearly preliminary remarks before the investigation started. . . . dave souza, talk 23:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

After removed the following passage:

The ICO responded with a letter that reemphasized its earlier press statement: "the prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence."

Dave Souza replaced it with this:

The university made available the ICO letter, which said that "the prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence."

The new sentence is not in the citation given, and the quote is found in none of the letters made available at that link. The quote is not from an earlier letter but is rather a clarification of that letter, as discussed in the article that cites the removed version (University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’). If someone wants to restore the earlier version that would be great. If not I'll do so myself tomorrow. (I don't believe I've made reverts, but I did make a lot of edits so I want to be careful.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh? this pdf, page 1, para 4. No italics on prima facie, otherwise identical to the same section quoted by the Sunday Times. . . dave souza, talk 21:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh couldn't find it with my browser's search thing. My bad and thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains it – pdf can include searchable text, as in the uni's letters, or can just be a photograph or photocopy, as in the ICO letter which means the text can't be searched or highlighted for copy and paste. . . dave souza, talk 06:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally particularly with old journal article you get both in that you're shown a scan of the article but there's actually text in the background and potentially even linked to each word, I presume from an OCR but not proof read well or at all (or perhaps is proof read well but for formatting reasons) Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources

Both POVs should be mentioned with weight based on their presentation in reliable sources. If there's an aspect to a primary source that the press failed to pick up on, it's against WP:NPOV to include it. (Again, I'm bold-facing the "if"'s that begin so many of my sentences because people seem to miss it.) I'm not saying that this applies to this particular case, (I honestly haven't looked into it yet) but I've noticed a tendency to quote primary sources (whether press releases or blog postings) which sometimes have the end result of overemphasizing a particular POV beyond their presentation in third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The press are also questionable as a reliable sources, both because they're giving an instant response to current affairs which is not necessarily accurate, and because of their political spin leading to distortions. That's the problem with trying to cover news rather than waiting for scholarly historical treatment. Thus, when the press cite info or refer to documents, it's normal research to look at the cited documents and see if they support the statements, while at the same time avoiding original research. The preferable option would be to wait for publication of the various enquiries and the judgement of reputable historians. . . dave souza, talk 22:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the press accounts, like the 12-part Guardian series, were published months after the event. I realize you (and many others) have problems with that series and many have problems with many of the press accounts, but they're the best we have (that's the nature of a Wikipedia article about an ongoing controversy). We should certainly look at any source with a critical eye. For instance, the small Pennsylvania newspaper that was my source for the recent edition of information on Michael Mann is worth looking at with a particularly critical eye because it will tend to be less professional than larger newspapers who have reporters continually covering this issue. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking a bit about that. The Graham Smith letter is quoted in newspaper accounts. I think the parts we quote are quoted in those accounts. It's published on the Web by the university, which could be interpreted as a move that's against the university's best interests (other than the interest in appearing honest and open), and it's hard to believe that the pdf image posted by the university is changed in any way, so the letter itself looks like a reliable source to me. In this set of paragraphs we cite news accounts which quote from the letter. If anything, we could put another footnote after quotes from the letter, but do you think it's worth it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We just quoted the newspaper account before, but there's just been an argument (hope it's resolved) about whether there was one or two letters discussed in that account, and citing the letter itself seemed the best way of resolving the interpretation of the news account. These news accounts are day to day stories, not the overall analysis by the Guardian's 12 part series which is excellent is general, though some details are questionable and are indeed questioned on the web pages (click on the yellow bits, check the section at the bottom of the article before the readers' comments). The submissions to the select committee were after that Guardian series, and there's just been outline news coverage of these issues. . . dave souza, talk 22:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Unfortunately, there are no peer-reviewed academic articles that we can reference so unless we delete the article, we have to go with the most reliable sources available. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that the press is questionable, how can we possibly maintain the high standard we expect of our articles related to global warming?
--K10wnsta (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Select Committee press conference

The Grauniad briefly had Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact online, but it's been showing a 404 not found. Quotes from it were still showing up on google, and matched quotes shown in this blog. The Irish Times version has some of the quotes, and is attributed to Reuters. As chairman, Phil Willis has had quite a bit to say, look forward to getting better sources on this. . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

AP says the scientists were almost entirely vindicated (FOIA being a major exception), although the committee report delved less deeply than some other inquiries (apparently they thought they needed to get the report out quickly because they expect elections in a month or so). [26] I guess the report is about to be released and the coverage we have as of now is from the pre-release press briefing. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Report was released, embargoed until 00.01 today. Among widespread coverage, The Times, Grauniad and NYT: the latter interestingly has as its penultimate paragraph "The publication of the e-mail messages ahead of an international conference in Copenhagen on climate change set off an online furor, in which skeptics of human-made climate change referred to the controversy as “Climategate.”" . . . dave souza, talk 04:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Inquiry: Climate data not manipulated

I'm surprised that "Team Science" hasn't jumped all over this one.[27] Anyway, I added a paragraph with the committee's conclusions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone's curious as to how not to write this content, I've provided two examples on my user talk page. Just to be clear: These are examples not to follow.[28] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you part of the team? Your para looks a reasonable start, one point from looking over the available sources is that the university was criticised for handling of FOIA requests rather than the scientists. We should probably expand that point a little, as the uni's failure to assist the scientists was specifically discussed. . dave souza, talk 04:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the article could not be better served with a shift of wording in regards to this paragraph, more specifically the opening sentence. "The investigation by House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee largely vindicated the scientists involved." Might better inform the reader by putting it thusly: "One of three investigations called for in the wake of this incident, as conducted by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee, is concluded." My reasoning for the first proposed change is to let the reader know the amount of other investigations that are alluded to deeper in the paragraph, to better inform. As to the second proposed change, I feel that the largeness of the vindication that the scientists feel could be considered subjective, and I'm not sure if that qualifier for the findings is necessary for the reader to understand what the conclusions of the investigation mean. While I invite thoughts regarding this proposal, I also would like to offer another source for this, even though I'm sure there will be many if there aren't already. [29] 72.192.46.9 (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, and is supported by WP:WordsToAvoid. Go for it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for the invitation to boldness, but as an IP editor I cannot do so due to the protection on the article. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

More detailed discussion needed, for example we should note that they recommend Jones resumes his job. . . dave souza, talk 10:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting consideration, but specificity would be a concern for me. May I also propose a new final sentence to this paragraph, then. "The committee's report was not unanimous; Labour MP Graham Stringer voted against several of its recommendations including an amendment by Evan Harris declaring that Dr Jones' scientific reputation remained intact." be completed with "Conversely, committee chairman Phil Willis was quoted stating there was no reason that Phil Jones should not return to his post.[30]" 72.192.46.9 (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just added a note about Graham Stringer's dissent, but it might help if I explain a bit more. In my experience, and I can say immodestly but accurately that I have a lot, it is rare for a House of Commons Select Committee to have votes on contentious paragraphs in a report, and even rarer for a member to oppose the formal vote to 'make the report to the House' of the Committee's findings. Stringer not only divided on several paragraphs and amendments, he also opposed making the report completely. This may not be a surprise after his approach at the evidence sessions, but it is worth noting his dissent given the committee report is dealt with in detail. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

IPs

Should we open up the page to IPs? It's been locked down for quite a while. Perhaps we should open it up again? If problems arise, we can always just close it down again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The semi-protection expires in a few hours anyway. Let us hope for the best :) - 2/0 (cont.) 03:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A series of changes, some modifications

In this series of edits, HiP introduced some useful changes and a number of misconceptions. I've now made some corrections and clarifications, revising the lead to make it clear that politicians rather than government organisations have made accusations of improper conduct,[31] removing the Mooney newspaper editorial that had already been discussed and removed as unsuitable and unreliable,[32] and removing individual in text attribution to one source of a widely understood majority view, as well as clarifying who.[33] Gotta be offline for a bit, discussion and improvements welcome. . dave souza, talk 10:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for opening a dialogue. In succession:

(1) See the "Content of the documents" section for citations for the sentence concerning allegations that you removed/altered.

(2) Note that the "Mooney" article is attributed to The Washington Times and provide me with a link to the talkpage discussion at which the editorial was branded unreliable.

(3) Please provide us with any reason to believe that Fred Pearce's view is 'majority'.

(4) Please self-revert as per 1RR and, if you can, return from your very conveniently placed wikibreak.

That covers everything.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

On DS's talk page you identified 2 edits as reverts, and it isn't clear why you think they are. However, nor is it clear which parts you want reverted - I assume that you don't want us to erroneously re-introduce "lawmakers", so what do you want un-reverted? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I tend to agree with Heyitspeter, I reverted one change in the lede as unsourced, and possibly BLP. (Not all who criticised the E-mails were critics of global warming, and ICO is a government organisation.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Arthur, you reverted my change in the lede to HiP's version – my version, "Upon the e-mails' dissemination, politicians and bloggers who dispute the extent or existence of human caused global warming contended that they indicated misconduct on the part of climate scientists. The issues raised were widely discussed in news media." is well sourced by the citations already in the detailed section, starting with Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists | Environment | The Guardian. Had a quick look through the other sources and found nothing to support "government organisations" – the ICO criticised the conduct of the UEA rather than the scientists, did any other government organisation make any criticism? Let's review rewording as the claims were primarily made by "skeptics" and others raised concerns rather than "contending" that the emails "indicated misconduct". . . dave souza, talk 17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ICO seemed to indicate that the E-mails indicated misconduct by the university or by the individuals; they later clarified it was by the university. But I see your point. Perhaps an expansion: "sceptics" contended the emails indicated misconduct, while others raised concerns. On the other hand, other (Real)Climate scientists have stated that even talking about deleting data rather than releasing it is a matter for serious concern. The summary needs to avoid undue weight, as well as being verifiable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that there were widespread serious concerns, perhaps we can work out something on the lines you suggest. . . dave souza, talk 18:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again to Heyitspeter, thanks for now engaging in dialogue after you introduced a whole series of edits without any discussion or agreement.

(1) See the "Content of the documents" section for citations for the sentence as amended by me, and as discussed immediately above in relation to Arthur Rubin's revert.

(2) Different editorials in The Washington Times have been discussed and not used as unreliable, which brings us to the issue of why you think the uninformed speculation in EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up - Washington Times of November 27 is a suitable source, and what's significant about "The Washington Times stated that the coding information released shows that the data "appear to have been constructed to show an increase in temperatures." when we have expert opinion, the word of the UEA and a statement to the Parliamentary Select Committee that the code in question had nothing to do with the the production of the global and hemispheric temperature series. That paragraph as now is hopelessly one sided and inaccurate, and will have to be improved.

(3) the "trick" to "hide the decline" has been explained as a colloquialism for a “neat” method of handling data and "discarding data known to be erroneous" by numerous reliable sources, not just Fred Pearce, most recently by the Parliamentary Select Committee.

(4) Your assertion of breach of 1RR is spurious, as I was dealing individually and constructively with a series of edits by you and did not remove any more than once. Would you have been happier if I'd simply reverted all your edits at one stroke?

Trust that helps, . . dave souza, talk 18:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring Heyitspeter for the moment; HaeB has a point that there is little support for government agencies, but there is little support for the enumeration of types of people at all, as it implies no one not in those categories objected. I think all we can say in the lede is "people and organisations"; any more detail would require us to source both that those particular types of people did make accusations of misconduct, and no other groups of people. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Cite errors

Posting stray ref from Time here, just in case it's needed: <ref name="Time 2 Dec">{{cite web|url=http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1945175,00.html|title=As Climate Summit Nears, Skeptics Gain Traction|last=Walsh|first=Bryan|work=[[Time Magazine]]|date=2 December 2009}}</ref>
I also took out a citation error to a Washington Times editorial here. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Time to remove this entire paragraph from the "Parliament" subsection

Now that the Parliament committee's report is out, this entire paragraph is WP:UNDUE unless there's something particularly cogent and appropriate in it that can be said in a much shorter way. We should be concentrating on the committee's conclusions, not specific submissions. Let's delete the whole thing and allow room for the panel's conclusions:

The committee invited written submissions from interested parties on the three issues that it will examine, by Wednesday 10 February. It has published 55 such submissions received by that date. Submissions have been received from the University of East Anglia, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Met Office, several other bodies, prominent scientists, some global warming 'sceptics', some MEPs and other interested parties. Each submission includes evidence and viewpoints from the body or individual concerned as well as a declaration of their interests. The report submitted by the Institute of Physics expresses concern about the CRU's scientific integrity. According to this report, the emails reveal evidence of "determined and coordinated refusals" to comply with scientific traditions through "manipulation of the publication and peer-review system" and "intolerance to challenge". This report was used by climate sceptics to bolster claims that the problem of global warming is exaggerated. This forced the Institute of Physics to confirm that its position was that "the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change." Many experts considered that the correction was still inadequate, with climatologist Andy Russell describing the allegation of data suppression as "incorrect and irresponsible". The institute said that the statement had been prepared by their energy subcommittee, but would not reveal who had produced it. It did say that the subcommittee included an IOP official named Peter Gill, whose company provides services to the energy industry and who has written that for many people, the subject of anthropogenic global warming "has become a religion, so facts and analysis have become largely irrelevant". The institute said that Gill was not the main source of information and that other members of the sub-committee were also critical of CRU. Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat member of the Science and Technology Select Committee, said "Members of the Institute of Physics ... may be concerned that the IOP is not as transparent as those it wishes to criticise." However the institute told the Guardian that the submission was "approved by three members of its science board" and supplied comments from an anonymous board member stating "The institute should feel relaxed about the process by which it generated what is, anyway, a statement of the obvious... the points [the submission] makes are ones which we continue to support, that science should be practiced openly and in an unbiased way."

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I contributed the first part, up to "...a declaration of their interests", originally to be a replacement for the detailed analysis of individual submissions. My argument at the time was that there were 55 submissions and a committee to analyse them, so cherry-picking a few and doing our own in-house analysis of them was not useful. That argument, as you say, is even more cogent now. I would be happy if it all went in favour of a summary of the committee's conclusions, or perhaps keep just that first bit (or a shortened version of it), to give an idea of the scope and terms of the evidence, before going into the committee's own findings. --Nigelj (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The IoP statement itself became a focus of the controversy and deserves mentioning. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

After I posted at 16:54 above, I had the same idea as Nigelj that perhaps the first part or a shorter version of it could still remain. I haven't had time recently to look into this, so I can't really add anything right now, but this discussion has sat around with only the three of us commenting on it and nothing in the past 23 hours or so, so I'm going to go ahead and delete most of the paragraph. I'm sure that section will get additions from the committee's report and reactions to it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Still, that's not a reason to cite 'consensus' in the removal. More of a WP:BOLD. :) Heyitspeter (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it is WP:UNDUE. Can you give a good reason to think so? If (e.g.) AQFK's concerns are not addressed I'll probably add back. --Heyitspeter (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it should be covered, IoPgate is significant in terms of the "controversy". If we end up with too much detail such aspects could be split into a sub-article with a brief WP:SUMMARY in this overview article. . . dave souza, talk 18:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly won't feel offended if someone wants to revert -- but then the section will be quite long even without much information on the report's conclusions. I haven't seen a lot of coverage of the IoP statement (have I missed it in the U.S. media? Did this get a lot of coverage in the U.K.?) and it appears to me to be peripheral to the subject. The article is 48K long already. There isn't much more in it less important than this, and we have the results of a number of investigations coming in over the next few months. If not this, where would you cut? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Point well taken. I wonder if we should instead include the removed text in the subarticle? Thoughts?--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is worth it's own article, it's certainly worth a couple sentences summarizing that article and a link from this article to that one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah no I didn't mean a whole new article just for that, but rather that we might include it here: Climatic Research Unit documents. I tried inserting some of the text there (at the 'emails' section). Check it out and lemme know what you think.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

UEA response

We should update to include http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2010/March/homepagenews/s%26treport William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? If this is this press release is worth including, surely third-party reliable sources will have covered it, and then we cite those. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, because we have a section called "UEA response", which already includes some UEA responses? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems sufficiently obvious that I've added a brief quote from them. Unsurprisingly, they are pleased; I don't think I've quoted them out of context William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC: Caution should be exercised when using primary sources. If this is really worth reporting, an independent reliable source should have done so. Given the many WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues that have plagued this article for the past 4 months, I don't think it's wise to insert potentially contentious material that (apparently) can only be cited to a primary source. Therefore, I'm removing it from the article. If you can address my WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE concerns, please do so and maybe we can rework it back into the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your WP:UNDUE and third party arguments, but there should be a link directly to their response, and WMC's edits are reasonable and do not hurt the article. Q Science (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To take your two points in turn: I don't think you have raised any UNDUE concerns at all (let alone any valid ones). You've said that there have been UNDUE concerns in the past, which is true, but says nothing about these particular edits. UNDUE begins An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. - I really can't see how that applies at all. How can it possibly be UNDUE to report the response of the UEA, to an important report, in a section about UEA's response? Q: you agree with AQFK's "UNDUE", can you perhaps explain more clearly why it applies?

As to NPOV: again, this doesn't seem to apply. We are clearly quoting UEA's response; there is no attempt to pretend that this is ultimate truth - it is what they are saying.

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The part you selected is a press release quoting a report. To me, that adds nothing. Just quote the report and be done with it. Perhaps UNDUE is the wrong term. On the other hand, I totally support having a link to the response. Perhaps something more editorial like "CRU is pleased with the results of this report"?

As for NPOV: to say “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact”, and related comments, needs qualification. Specifically, it should also be mentioned that this was added to the report by a three to one vote and does not represent a unanimous conclusion. Q Science (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems that I have with including this is that without third-party reliable sources, there's no way for us to gauge how much weight this content should have. It forces us into a position where we as Wikipedia editors must decide its prominence. Further, it forces us to decide which parts of the press release are worth including. We, as Wikipedia editors, don't have the right to make these types of decisions.

Further, it opens the door to including other primary sourced responses. Does ClimateAudit's response get included in the article? How do we decide its weight?

I'm not completely against using primary sources. If you check out my article on Bernard Foing, you'll see that I cite primary sources quite extensively. But that's not a controversial article, the material is not contentious and there's never been a content dispute there.

Look, this should be easy enough to resolve. Find some third-party reliable sources which cover the UEA press release. We can then decide: a) Is it worth mentioning?, b) How much weight it should get? and c) Which parts of the UAE statement should be mentioned? A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

Does ClimateAudit's response get included in the article? - this seems to be entirely spurious. Is CA a major actor in this affair? No. Does CA have a section in the article devoted to its response? No. So it is unsurprising that we don't have CA's response (and anyway, its but a blog, so isn't a RS). Further, it forces us to decide which parts of the press release are worth including - this too looks spurious. We always pick which bits of a given source we use, we don't quote them in their entirety William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A sentence or two on the University's response to the first investigation report, using their press release as the source, should be fine. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with this, provided that we don't imply that any of their statements are accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Easy to do, "In response to the investigation report, East Anglia stated that [summarize/synthesize their response or cherry pick a quote]." Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC: Yes, actually ClimateAudit is a important player in the scandal. I noticed that you failed to address any of my concerns. Without any third-party reliable sources, I would argue that it's weight is zero. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, CA isn't. See? Goes nowhere. As to your concerns: I have demolished your UNDUE and NPOV concerns. Your Specifically, it should also be mentioned that this was added to the report by a three to one vote and does not represent a unanimous conclusion. is nothing but your own opinion. Why should we say this? Because you happen to want it? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Fred Pearce has some interesting things to say. [34] My point is that to bluntly say 'vindicated' is maybe too simplistic. Maybe it would be best to wait a couple of days for other commentary to surface?130.232.214.10 (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Vindicated" is not only simplistic, but not supported by the sources. "Cleared" (from the title) means cleared of violations of law; "vindicated" implies cleared of wrongdoing, which is clearly not in the article or the committee report. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore that last; it was in the article, although not supported by the committee report. It's still WP:PEACOCK, but I suppose we have to go with the source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Since I received a note on my talk page about this, I am including a note here as well. I do not see how the word "vindicated" is "peacock". Furthermore, I took great pains to add a citation directly to that word, thereby replacing the "peacock" tag. The source cited specifically says they were vindicated. That's verifiable and as we know the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's still a WP:PEACOCK word, although apparently in the source. I suppose we have to go with it, but if another source referring to the committee report comes up, we should use more appropriate wording. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"I have demolished your UNDUE and NPOV concerns".

^^^^^^^^^^^

You misspelled "dodged". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

More dodgy stuff

This [35] looks like an attempt to minimise the investigation. I think it should be reverted.

This [36] is clearly unacceptable on BLP grounds - the source doesn't say this, and neither does the report. Please don't add inaccurate paraphrases William M. Connolley (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The first edit doesn't minimise the investigation, the report says several times that there is an Independant Climate Change Email Review that should look more closely at specific points and whose results have yet to be published, and the AP piece says 'The first of several British investigations into the e-mails' so the phrase is sourced. Also CBS says 'As this is only the first of three planned investigations, the debate over the integrity of the science underpinning the argument for the existence of global warming is likely to go on.'

The second is being fought over... but the source only says that the scientists would have been better doing things other than worrying about how to stonewall critics. It doesn't say they would have been better doing other things than stonewalling critics - there is a difference, although the report does say that 'we found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics' so it may be an innacurate paraphrase of the AP piece but it seems BLP acceptable. Adding the whole phrase is a better representation. Weakopedia (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Government organisations

Currently the lede uses the phrase "government organisations such as the Information Commissioner's Office". That implies the existence of other government organisations that have been critical, but I see nothing in the rest of the article that refers to them. To be honest, I'm not completely sure that the ICO counts as a 'government organisation', as it is supposed to be fully independent, but I'll not argue about that. Mikenorton (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That section of the lede is a disaster. There were several different allegations made by a wide variety of people, including fellow scientists[37] and environmentalists.[38] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The first link seems to list "skeptics" including Lawson and Peiser, as well as the notorious IoP statement by non-climatologists with a skeptical connection. The second is Monbiot going over the top, a better source needed. There's a real issue of reluctance to give out information which is better covered in other sources such as the Guardian's special report or the coverage of the Select Committee, will look for that. Clearly the attacks were started by skeptics and deniers, there were subsequently numerous scientists and others expressing concern about making data and working methods including code more available, which has already been done to a significant extent. We should not mix the two together. . . dave souza, talk 15:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) See my comment of 01:37 UTC above. The attempt to characterise the critics in the lede leads to (one or more of) absurdities, grammatically incorrect statements (newspapers, ICO, and bloggers), and/or false implications (that all critics fall into one of the named categories). I think we just need to reset it to "people and organisations" (still using references for each of the types of criticism, carefully adding ICO's criticism at the UEA web site), remove the sentence entirely, or split it in to separate paragraphs giving lists of individuals and organisations for each type of criticism. The last seems to violate WP:LEDE, but might be necessary per WP:UNDUE.

ICO is an non-departmental public body, it's a government organisation not part of a "department". The commissioner is appointed by the Crown. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. That sounds like a good solution.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead statement duplicates an inaccurate paraphrase of sources in the Content of the documents section – the first two being the Guardian and NYT which are explicit that the accusations are made by "climate skeptics", as does the BBC's "Chair for climate e-mail review" article. The Daily Telegraph article is showing a 404 for me, but it quotes Lawson, a Tory politician and climate skeptic with no scientific expertise. So, we should make that clear. The ICO issue is tagged on to this, where newspapers asserted inaccurately that the ICO had "decided" that the UEA "broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny", when it's now clear that they said they had a case without being in a position to make a decision, and the request was for emails, not "raw data". Out of date and misleading info, if we're giving a blow by blow account it can be followed by a clarification, but unsuitable for the lead. Will think it over. . dave souza, talk 15:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly supporting the UEA "line" about the ICO letters, although it would have some weight if one did not know the meaning of the term "prima facie". ICO's statement (translated into English) was that there was strong (in fact, the strongest imaginable) evidence that UEA had broken the law, but that ICO could not investigate, because the statute of limitations had expired. The newspapers may have misreported this, just as they clearly misreported the committee report by using the word "vindicated". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply reporting the situation as shown by detailed information that came out after the newspapers initially made unsupported claims that the ICO had made a decision and that it referred to "raw data". The newspaper which obtained the story was the Sunday Times, authors Webster and Leake. Webster's recent article says that "The MPs criticised the Information Commissioner’s Office for suggesting that the university had breached the Freedom of Information Act. The report said the question of whether there had been a breach needed to be resolved, with a full investigation by Sir Muir or the Information Commissioner." You're quite right to be cautious about press reporting, so we should refer to the committee report Section 3 which discusses the issue in detail, with paragraphs 84–93 commenting on the ICO statement and "The ICO's most recent letter, dated 3 March, in UEA's view, "makes plain that there is no assumption by the ICO, prior to investigation, that UEA has breached the Act; and that no investigation has yet been completed." The committee conclusions are:
"We regret that the ICO made a statement to the press that went beyond that which it could substantiate and that it took over a month for the ICO properly to put the record straight. We recommend that the ICO develop procedures to ensure that its public comments are checked and that mechanisms exist to swiftly correct any mis-statements or misinterpretations of such statements. 92 The disclosed e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information (disclosable or otherwise) may have been deleted, to avoid disclosure. The Deputy Information Commissioner's letter of 29 January gives a clear indication that a breach of the FOIA may have occurred but that a prosecution was time-barred.[130] As, however, UEA pointed out, no investigation has been carried out.
93. It seems to us that both sides have a point. There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It would, however, be premature, without a thorough investigation affording each party the opportunity to make representations, to conclude that UEA was in breach of the Act.
In our view, it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter unresolved simply because of the operation of the six-month time limit on the initiation of prosecutions. Much of the reputation of CRU hangs on the issue. We conclude that the matter needs to be resolved conclusively—either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the Information Commissioner.
Other sources also discuss this rebuttal of the ICO's initial statement. . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There is obfuscation and probably dissembling on the part of all parties, including newspapers. The Deputy Commissioner of ICO seems to have overstepped his authority, at least according to the Committee.

The question of whether ICO may investigate potential FOIA violations which are time-barred is not resolved by the Committee report, so they are suggesting an investigation without a potential investigator. None of the active investigations have the questions of whether the FOIA requests were properly handled or whether there was a potential violation of the FOIA (which are not the same question) in their charter. The Independent Commission was charter to determined if there was a breach of scientific standards, not of legal (or necessarily) ethical standards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

They've specifically said the ICO or Muir Russell has to investigate and report on potential section 77 breach, the investigation will not result in a prosecution (max fine £5k) but they recommend that an exemption to the 6 month limit apply to future cases. The ICO is to carry out a section 50 investigation and decision anyway. . dave souza, talk 18:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The MSNBC article that I cited the other day says " largely vindicated". AQFK (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We can be more specific. As Channel 4 notes,
"Mr Willis said the committee's short inquiry - one of three reviews launched in the wake of the emails emerging - had found no evidence that Prof Jones hid or manipulated data to back up his own science..... The report found Prof Jones had no case to answer over allegations of dishonesty and his scientific reputation was intact - although one of the committee's MPs, Graham Stringer, said the inquiry could have been more thorough on the issue.
The committee also said it sympathised with Prof Jones over his frustration at requests from sceptics asking for information "purely to undermine his research".
But Mr Willis said: "In reality, that's no excuse. If people want that information for whatever motive, provided it is a scientific motive, it's important in terms of confidence to make that available."
The report also said that Prof Jones' actions in not releasing data and his methods for drawing conclusions were in line with those of other climate scientists - but that those practices needed to change."
That covers both pro and con sides. John Timmer in Ars Technica is one source drawing attention to the committee's statement,
"Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible," the report indicates. "The results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified."
So, the science is supported, Jones and the CRU were cleared of accusations of scientific malpractice, but the standards of disclosure should improve and have already been improved. . dave souza, talk 18:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I third Arthur's suggestion although I prefer "various people and organisations" since we're dealing with a very diverse group of people including fellow scientists[39] and pro-AGW environmentalists.[40] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've checked through the sources and reflected accurately what they've said in the detailed section, and included a slightly trimmed version of that in the lead without repeating all the citations (as had been done in recent changes). Monbiot and others raised concerns about withholding info, which is covered. The NYT article you cite as "fellow scientists" refers to an IoP statement which seems to have been written by a hardline "climate skeptic" who portrays AGW as a religion, but the statements from IoP in the NYT refer to withholding info so that's covered. . . dave souza, talk 19:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at your changes a little later, but it's more than just the IoP. Off the top of my head, there's Judy Curry[41] and John Christy[42]. Even Michael Mann criticized Phil Jones for telling him to delete his e-mails.[43]

BTW, I think the article is starting to suffer a little from recentism. This is not the first 'official' investigation into the Climategate scandal. Penn State conducted a review of Michael Man which everyone's seems to have forgotten about. I'm not sure why the HoC investigation is deserving of more weight than Penn State's. Also, while not 'official', there's the Associated Press's investigation, which IIRC was pretty thorough and was conducted by scientists.

One minor thing. I'd change "newspapers" to "news media". I mean, who reads paper anymore? :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See Newspaper for a definition of the term. Newspapers are not (necessarily) print media. I've restored the earlier wording.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point about "news media", I've made the change.

The scientists you name appear to be outliers, and shouldn't be given undue weight, but their main concern about data distribution is covered reasonably well by "Academics, climate change researchers and independent reports said that nothing in the emails proved wrongdoing, and dismissed the allegations, but expressed concern that scientists appeared to have avoided sharing scientific data with sceptical critics."

Judy Curry's comments about "tribalism" are probably worth exploring a bit in the detailed section, the Guardian series covered that a bit, but it's an extension of the freedom of info issue in many ways. She doesn't seem to make much mention of anything else in her Nov 22, 2009, Climate Audit piece, though I do like some of her remarks like "While the blogosphere has identified many emails that allegedly indicate malfeasance, clarifications especially from Gavin Schmidt have been very helpful in providing explanations and the appropriate context for these emails."

I've cited the AP investigation and summarised it briefly in the above sentence. The Mann review was significant but the main focus has been on CRU and on Phil Jones, and the Select Committee gives a useful third party assessment of the various issues, albeit an interim view until the more detailed inquiries report. What they've said seems to back up the picture that was already emerging.

So, while we can probably find a couple of individual climate scientists who've gone beyond the distribution of info issue, we have to give due weight to the majority view as expressed in Science and Nature as well as by a considerable number of climate researchers. . . dave souza, talk 20:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of edits

By the way, HeyitsPeter's reversion of my edits reintroduces inaccurate misreadings of sources and is wholly unjustified. More on that later. . dave souza, talk 21:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to say so, Dave Souza. It's trivially true that you believe your edits are correct. Can you give specifics? I saw a lot of WP:SYNTH, the removal of sources in tension with WP:UNDUE, and the removal of the word "newspaper" in favor of "news media", which I've addressed in this section.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Having checked the timing, I've reverted you unjustifiable mass reversion which removed considerable new info and undid my careful checking of existing sources. News media is a good change suggested by AQFK above, which covers TV as well as print media. There's no synth now, it carefully reflects sources which the previous version didn't. There's no need to repeat the inline citations in the lead as they're all covered in the detailed section, as you'd see if you read this talk page and checked carefully. Do please discuss any proposed changes, and of course no reverts for 24 hours. . dave souza, talk 21:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave's edits look good to me. If there's SYNTH, please specify what you consider it to be. And could you please explain what you mean by "a lot of well-sourced information whose inclusion is necessary as per WP:UNDUE". Thanks HiP. Guettarda (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For starters, undoing this edit re-inserts errors into the lead. Blindly reverting in a way that re-introduces errors is seriously problematic. When you revert an edit, you're responsible for the version to which you revert. Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This edit, which you undid, corrects a grammatical error. Guettarda (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No sources handy, but does anyone still claim that emails and data were deleted to avoid the FOI request? By undoing this edit, I believe that you added another error to the article. Guettarda (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The FOI violations are one major allegation that appears to be valid. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-read the source. The quotes refer to data sharing in general. Saying that they're about the FOIA is a misrepresentation. Guettarda (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Information Commissioner's Office has already said that they violated FOIA but can't prosecute because of a legal technicality. Why are we going over this again? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a reference to the sources in the article. As for the ICO, it made an informal statement to a journalist without having done the investigation to back it up, and was misrepresented by the press. See earlier comments and the full discussion of this in the Select Committee report and relevant secondary sources. No proof that they deleted anything, let alone data. . . dave souza, talk 22:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The juxtaposition, almost certainly done in good faith, created the misleading impression that the quote was in reference to the FOI request. Dave's edit removed the misleading juxtaposition (and also improved the writing in general). By undoing it, Heyitspeter re-introduced the error. Reverts are fine, but you're responsible for the content that's changed in the revert. Heyitspeter should not have blindly reverted, for in so doing, he inserted errors into the article. Which is what we're discussing here. Guettarda (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Dave's revert of HIP's revert, for the simple reason that when HIP reverted Dave's bold editing, it follows that there should be discussion, not another revert by the author of the BOLD edit. It is BRD, not BRRD. Moogwrench (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean you're intentionally inserting incorrect information? If you revert, you're responsible for your edits. Guettarda (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Say what? "The Information Commissioner's Office has already said that they violated FOIA" <- that is incorrect. What the ICO said is that there is "prima facie evidence" for a violation - not that there was a violation. Prima facie is not proof - its what can start a case (a reasonable suspicion to investigate further). But since the deadline had passed, there was no reason to investigate. This is a very important distinction. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a important distinction. Unless you can cite a reliable source that specifically says that it's a very important distinction, you're engaging in OR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What? Are you doubting what prima facie means? Is it WP:OR to actually look up what words mean? Sorry - but now you really are confusing me. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You claimed it was an important distinction. Unless you have a reliable source which makes this point in regards to the Climategate scandal, it's a violation of OR. Honestly, I'm not interested in going around in circles on this one. Either you have a reliable source or you don't. And apparently, you don't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again i'm confused. You are the one who is treating prima facie as if it was res ipsa loquitur, there is an extremely important distinction between the two - and it is not hard to find references for that. Your statement (paraphrase) "that the ICO has said that they have violated FOI" is incorrect, i was pointing this out to you, since it seems that you weren't aware of the distinction. I surely hope that this isn't something that is relevant to the article, ie. that we actually do state prima facie as if it was final? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about the distinction. All I care about is - as faithfully as possible - reporting what reliable sources say about this topic without introducing any editorial bias on my part. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, then i suggest that you stop introducing editorial bias by coming up with faulty claims. How about correcting (by striking out or adding) to the comment above? Prima Facie is never enough to determine a case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that I have. Perhaps we should try to address this problem from another angle. What specific change are you recommending that we make in the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Doh! I give up. The correct response from you should have been: "Ah, yes. Went abit overboard with that statement." As editors we have a responsibility to understand the references, and to present them (both here and in the article) as unbiased as possible. Fortunately in the article it is written correctly, albeit extremely confusing (paraphrased): "The UEA says the ICO stated that on the face of it it looked like a FOI violation, the ICO responds, it could hardly on the face of it look more like a FOI violation than it did." (keyword: look like). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree there is a distinction and it is important and it is unfortunate that AQFK either doesn't understand this distinction or doesn't care about it. However since the comment doesn't really concern a LP (neither the ICO or AQFK singled out any particularly individuals at the UoEA) so isn't a serious BLP concern and since this isn't a RFC/U I feel there's ultimately there's little point getting into a detailed discussion about this, instead I agree with AQFK we should concentrate on what change, if any, is recommended for the article as a result of this Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've implemented Arthur Rubin's suggestion of "people and organisations" with the addition of the word "various". To the best of me knowledge, no one else has made this edit so it's not a revert. However, if this used to be in the article and I missed it or forgot, let me know and I'll be happy to self-revert. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

But it makes things even vaguer. That's not good writing. Guettarda (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The situation is complicated. There were several different allegations made by a wide variety of people, including fellow scientists[44][45][46] and pro-AGW environmentalists.[47] Even Michael Mann criticized Phil Jones for telling him to delete his e-mails.[48] If you think of an easy to way to explain which person or group of people made which allegation, I'm all ears. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously people: as much as blind reverts may be, reverting a simple correction of a grammatical error is utterly unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the grammatical error? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you disputing the error, or are you arguing without bothering to read what I said? Guettarda (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to play games. If you won't answer my question, then show me the diff where you explained the error. Or stop going on about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Or just fix the darn error, right? Moogwrench (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, people have been taught not to "waste" their 1RR on fixing grammatical or factual errors. Sigh. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Moogwrench, you reintroduced the problematic text. You chose to reinsert errors into the article. You made the mess. Fixing it should be your responsibility. Guettarda (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, per your request I restored the last good version without the errors. Per your comment here, I trust that this edit of mine should not be counted as a revert. Guettarda (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Play what games AQFK? I provided a link. In this very section. So honestly, I found your comment difficult to comprehend. Should I assume that you didn't bother to read the comment you replied to? I would never start by assuming that you're acting in bad faith. So I asked you to clarify. And then I had to run. Good Friday service and all that. I realise that between asking you to read my comments in this section or changing the liturgical calendar of the church, we should go with the former. Guettarda (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, please explain what the grammatical error is or provide the diff where you've done so. Either request should be easy to fulfill. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I provided diffs. I provided them long before you asked. The fact that you insist on pretending they don't exist provides confirmation (if any more is needed) of your game. Guettarda (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what is in the body of the article, the lede contained undue juxtaposition in all recent forms. I've removed "climate sceptics" from the first sentence; suggest removing the details from the second, and edited out a serious error in the ICO sentence, although details of the ICO statement and statements about it suggest that both clauses are incorrect, although sourced to some of the materials. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda is referring to [49] which he linked to above in a comment dated 21:41, 2 April 2010. Edit: I stick by most of my comments here however Guettarda's example doesn't appear to be relevant, see my following comment.' For the record I agree that

1) This should not have been reverted

2) Given the large number of edits, some of which were evidentally disputed and the fact these were interpersed with the good edits, it's not exactly easy to revert the bad but keep the good, so it's understandable that a mass revert was used even the problems highlighted show why it should be done with care

3) This should also remind us to take care when making substanial changes that are likely to be disputed

4) It was acceptable to fix this again, even if you are technically violating 1RR since it's almost definitely not intentional to revert it (note I'm solely referring to the grammatical error here)

5) While it's acceptable to bring up the issue, it might be better to take it directly to the person who made the reversion, in any case there's no point getting into long arguments over it

6) People should generally read what their replying to but while this was linked to earlier in this section, it was very early on and given the length it's perhaps somewhat understandable if AQFK didn't see it, so the best course of action is simple to link to the error again.

Note that I have purposely avoided saying whether AQFK/Guettarda or Dave/Heyitspeter are somehow more right or wrong in the respective disputes

Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'm with AQFK entirely here now. What grammatical error? I still agree that [50] was an error and the change should not have been reverted, but it wasn't reverted or at least not really. Heyitspeter did revert all of DS edits which may have included some grammatical errors however the one that Guettarda linked to was introduced by DS himself so it was not effectively reintroduced by HIP nor by Moogwrench. When Guettarda made this change he was reintroducing the apparently disputed edits and perhaps some undisputed ones but was not correcting the DS error since it never existed.

From a skim thorough this discussion, I can't see any other link to a grammatical error by Guettarda. I've also skimmed thorough the reversions (only the actual parts that have been changed) that Guettarda is complaing about and I didn't notice any grammatical errors. However while a native English speaker I don't have a perfect understanding of grammar. So I may have missed something in both cases. But if Guettara is solely referring to the above error, then while it's somewhat understandable you may not notice that the grammatical error was introduced by the person who's edits were reverted it is a reminder to look carefully before you dispute someone's edits and this whole kuffle about reverting grammatical errors has been about nothing. (No comments on the factual errors etc obviously.)

Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I thought the link would have been self-evident to anyone fluent in English:

the "standard practice" of climate scientist generally of not routinely releasing all its raw data.

• Climate scientist is singular. You can't generalise individuals.
• "The standard practice of climate scientist" is not idiomatic in English (except, perhaps, in Indian English). It needs an article, or it needs to be plural ("climate scientists")
• The climate scientist is a person. You don't use "its" to refer to people. "His", "her" or "his or her" would all be grammatically correct. Alternately, if "climate scientists" was used, it would be "their".
• "The standard practice...of not routinely releasing all its data" would work in informal usage, but in formal writing you'd use "all of its data"
• "generally of not routinely releasing" isn't ungrammatical, but it's awful writing.
• Alternately, you could employ Dave's correction.

Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but did you read what I said at all? As I pointed out, this error was introduced by Dave in the first place. I made it clear I'm not disputing that Dave's original wording was grammatically incorrect, but it's irrelevant since no one re-introduced his error because they reverted all his edits, inclusion his correction of the error of course and his introduction of the error in the first place. I included the edit histories in case there was any dispute. It is inherently impossible to reintroduce an error which was never there and as I explained and is logical, from the POV of the reversions if the error was introduced by the person who's edits are being reverted and then quickly corrected by that same person in the very next edit, then that error never existed.

As I said, it's perhaps understandable if you didn't notice that this error was reintroduced by DS in the first place although I don't know why you didn't understand my post where I felt I resonably clearly explained that the error you linked to was introduced by DS in the first place and therefore was never reintroduced, however it doesn't really matter provided you now accept that this error was never reintroduced since it was introduced by DS in the first place. (Well we can discuss DS's grammatical failings in his first edit if you really want but frankly I'm not sure why an error introduced by DS and then quickly correct is particularly relevant.)

Now that we've hopefully finally established that there was no error, as this error was introduced by Dave in the first place, is there any other grammatical error that was reintroduced? As I've mentioned, I look thru the actual disputed edits and I didn't see any but of course it's possible I missed something. But as I've already explained multiple times including multiple times in my original post, any error which was not reintroduced by anyone because that error was introduced by DS in the first place and people reverted all the edits is irrelevant. If the only grammatical error we are discussing here is indeed that error which was introduced by DS in the first place and therefore was not in need of correction as it was never in the article, then I guess there's nothing more to discuss.

And sorry for the continous repetition, but since I feel I explained this fairly well in my original post but you didn't seem to get it I felt that unfortunately repetition is the only way to get the key point which is that, and one more time for good measure the error you are discussing was introduced by Dave in the first place and was never reintroduced by anyone else since they reverted all of DS's edits.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept that point, my typing error which I duly corrected. However, in that same edit I corrected misattribution of a statement. HiP's revert reintroduced various errors which I'd corrected and, contrary to his edit summary, reintroduced misreadings of the sources which allegedly supported the statements. Grammatically, it presented one government organisation as "organisations such as" when no source has been shown for other organisations, and implied that the ICO had made allegations which it had not. It also deleted valid sources and summaries of important conclusions which should be shown to meet BLP standards. Hope that clarifies things. . . dave souza, talk 11:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into the other edits/problems (although others are welcome to) but I'd concede that "organisations such as" was wrong since I'm not aware of any other goverment organisations and there doesn't seem to be sources supporting that. However I don't think it's really a grammatical issue (although I don't think you were trying to say it was) more of a content dispute (someone used it since they believed/felt there were others) since the such as etc part clearly intends that, if it was only one organisation we'd say 'A government organisation...' or something similar. :As I've hinted at above, I haven't really looked into detail of the disputed edits other then to look for grammatical errors since the claim was made but as I also mentioned I don't think it's that uncommon that people revert all the edits if they feel there are substanial problems with them and trying to revert only part of them isn't easy when they're interspersed. The fact that we've spent so long discussing a grammatical error that was never (effectively) reverted perhaps illustrates that.

This doesn't mean I'm saying it's a good idea but it is understandable and a good solution whatever ends up happening is to discuss the edits and come to an agreement about which you feel are fine (if it's a clear cut grammatical error then perhaps just make the edit again), which edits you feel are harmful and then try to come up with a resonable compromise rather then getting into a long disputes about the reversions and who was right or wrong where ultimately one party is going to say you shouldn't have reverted all those edits since some of them were clearly fine or necessary and the other is going to say you should have discussed contentious changes first and not made contentious changes intertwined with the clear cut ones; in the end getting nowhere. (From personal experience I know how easy it to get into such mutual recriminations that lead no where productive.)

This was basically what I was trying to say earlier before I got sidetracked upon finding the grammatical error hadn't been reverted so just wanted to bring it up again in case it got missed.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I fully agree and there was prior discussion of the principle of the changes, as well as discussion following the changes which was derailed when HiP made a blanket revert without any discussion, putting back the problems that were under discussion at a time when I had to go and do other things in real life. This taking "sides" is very unfortunate, we can surely agree to accurately summarise sources, and find additional reliable sources if we feel that some aspect isn't covered well enough. Hope things will improve now, dave souza, talk 13:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hacked vs. allegedly leaked or hacked

I assume this discussion has surfaced a lot of times already, but now one of the leading newspapers in the world says explicit "allegedly leaked or hacked from the CRU and posted online" (my bolding) as reported in the article British lawmakers issue mixed report on 'Climategate' in The Washington Post. Proposal to change three sentence in the current document (it should be uncontroversial).

Change from

allegations that the hacked e-mails showed climate scientists colluded

to

allegations that the allegedly leaked or hacked e-mails showed climate scientists colluded

and from

server of the RealClimate website was hacked and

to

server of the RealClimate website was allegedly leaked or hacked

[…]

References

and from

allegations that the hacked e-mails showed climate scientists

to

allegations that the allegedly leaked or hacked e-mails showed climate scientists

Is there any very well sourced objections to these change proposals? Nsaa (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would support this edit, since there are plenty of reliable sources that flatly state that the CRU scientists colluded, or something to that effect, and yet that is just an "allegation". However, the hacking is not just an allegation. It is a double standard to say one thing is merely an allegation and another is an objective fact, so I'm all for this. Well, that, or rewording things to read like this:

the hacked e-mails showed climate scientists colluded

Instead of:

allegations that the hacked e-mails showed climate scientists colluded

These hearings that people keep suggesting we "wait until the end of" are not the end all and be all of the decisions of whether or not this is a scandal, or whether or not the scientists in question really did collude to do some bad things. Case in point, Bill Clinton wasn't removed from office, but we still call it the Lewinsky scandal. Macai (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Bill Clinton was held in contempt of court and fined for false testimony, there were no doubts there about a scandal. Not a very good analogy in my view. Mikenorton (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Lewinsky scandal wasn't about that. It was about how he got some head from an intern. It was a sex scandal, not a legal one. But if you want another example of someone who was not found guilty of anything and it's still called a "scandal", see Mark Foley scandal, which only got moved because of a debate on this page. Also, on Mark Foley, you'll notice they state that he sent sexually explicit messages on an IM program. Case in point, you don't need to have a conviction to describe events. The messages showed collusion. Period. Macai (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, if reliable sources call it a scandal, then it's a scandal. If reliable sources don't call it a scandal, then it's not a scandal. It's really not that much more complicated than that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the page I'm on, AQFK. But I'm expanding this principle a bit more: if reliable sources say the emails demonstrate collusion, then the emails demonstrate collusion. Otherwise, the emails do not. Macai (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion has surfaced before, and the consensus so far has been "hacked". To even consider "allegedly hacked or leaked" for the RealClimate example in particular shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue. StuartH (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Says who? Get a well sourced statement supporting this word play. Nsaa (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Says StuartH. Macai (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Which issue in particular? Most of the sources currently used in the article describe it as a "hacking". Are you seriously suggesting that the RealClimate website was leaked, despite the fact that the administrators of the website themselves confirmed the hack and that data was uploaded to, not released from, the website? Such a change conveys a lack of understanding of the issue. StuartH (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything in this regard. I'm suggesting rephrase and widening of the possibilities as described by Washington Times (and a host of other news outlet like As CBSNews.com reported last week, the leaked files show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, "the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails"). We are forming the reality by suppressing other explanations currently backed by secondary sources. Nsaa (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your suggested edit to the RealClimate section was "server of the RealClimate website was allegedly leaked or hacked". Such an edit is factually incorrect and unsupported by any reliable sources. Also, the e-mails themselves were both hacked and leaked, and both words are used in the article itself. Pointing to someone calling it a "leak" doesn't suggest that they weren't hacked. Changing wording to "allegations that the allegedly leaked or hacked e-mails showed climate scientists..." just makes the article needlessly clumsy. StuartH (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just quoted a well respected secondary source. It's not up for us to decide if they're wrong or right. Please support your claim by a reliable source saying clearly it was only a hack (and NOT a leak). Nsaa (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The first few references in the article are a good place to start.Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center, Hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between world's leading climate scientists stolen by hackers and leaked online, the focus on Jones and the CRU in the row about the hacked emails.StuartH (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

For the first. This is as it was reported right after the data was leaked on the net, and it do not directly contradict that it could be a leak from the inside. Now it's clearly not sure how these documents got released. Allegedly is needed because it could be neither leaked (implicitly saying from one of the involving parties, and why it's so hard for you guys to accept the inclusion) or hacked. It could even be accessed by students or other uninvolved parties that had access to the relevant databases (legally or illegally). Daily Mail said something like this in this article [51] "East Anglia University has gone out of its way to promote itself to students from the former Soviet Union. Its website says that 33 Russian students currently study there. It is not known if they have fallen under suspicion as part of the police investigation.".

We should not say anything definite as we do now. We have a host of secondary sources saying it could be a leak (and not necessary a hack). See

• Washington Post: British lawmakers issue mixed report on 'Climategate' "were allegedly leaked or hacked from the CRU" (the main source for the inclusion of leaked as a possibility)
• Nature: News briefing: 1 April 2010 (Yes, from the Nature Magazine) "looked into the disclosure of climate data revealed by e-mails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich",
• The Independent: Leading article: Climate change fightback, part 1 "But this policy backfired spectacularly, once the emails were leaked."
• The Daily Mail: [52] "An official inquiry into the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia"
• The Sunday Telegraph: (commentary article) [53] "scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit",
• CBS: [54] "The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England"
• Examiner.com: Who leaked the Hadley CRU files and why "Persons knowledgeable in information security hold that this is not the behavior of a hacker.",
• The Guardian: Dated 1 February 2010: Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws "The leaked emails from the CRU reveal that the former director of the unit, Tom Wigley, harboured grave doubts about the cover-up of the shortcomings in Jones and Wang's work."

Blogs (I'm NOT proposing using this source in the text, just to get some more background on possible leakers)

• If the CRU leak was an inside whistleblower, here’s the line-up of potential suspects heroes,

As you see I've even given you an more recent article from the Guardian that says leaked (dated 1 February 2010, not 21 Nov. 2009 as yours), so here we have an development. It is extremely grave that we suppress other explanations that is out there. Off course this is a big blow for some of the pundits on this article who think it's mainly a criminal act by some hackers ... But we do not chose only one story. We describe every possible reason by making reference to solid secondary sources per WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and a host of other policies that we current break by just telling on part of the story. Iff you can dismiss Washington Post (it's not the more right leaning Washington Times) and this article as groundless and get it through on WP:RS/N, it's maybe acceptable not to include it as its worded now, but the avalanches of reliable secondary sources (you can try to look up WP:SECONDARY) that uses the term leaked is overwhelming. I don't think you will get anyway down that line, but I must pinpoint you in the direction we can go to resolve it. By not including this we clearly break one of our five pillars that says "We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view", see WP:FIVE. Nsaa (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting comments on a talk page, Stu? Tsk, tsk. There was a point to it -- that you weren't giving an argument for your assertions, just ... asserting them. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from blatant vandalism in the future. Thanks a lot. Macai (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you exercised more caution with accusations of vandalism. Your snide personal remark contributed nothing to the discussion or article. If you have a request for clarification of my remarks, please make it more politely. StuartH (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's bad to remove others comments like you did. This is typically a straw mans argument. Please don't. Nsaa (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the comment, but I maintain my objections as stated above. It was a pointless personal remark that doesn't belong on a talk page. StuartH (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit to lede

The most recent edit to the lede has left it saying the following "people gained wide publicity in blogs and news media for pointing out that the e-mails showed climate scientists colluded in manipulating data, withheld scientific information, and tried to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published". I've used my revert for the day or I would have reverted Macai's last edit that introduced this phrasing. That is saying that those allegations are established facts, which they clearly are not, apart possibly from 'withholding scientific information', although even that's not proven. Mikenorton (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I can provide mainstream sources flatly stating that the emails show collusion to these acts. Hang on a tick while I get them and add them in. Macai (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I have used my revert to correct this. These are only allegations at this point, and the allegations are being investigated. StuartH (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And it's now an edit war. I'm not going to break 1RR, but this is very, very bad form. StuartH (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So far, I don't think anyone's even violated 1RR. I don't consider this edit warring, just editing. Macai (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on how often it happens, I guess. You promised reliable mainstream sources above - why don't you list them so we can have a discussion? When I reverted it, none of the sources were useful for establishing any of the claims as fact. Delingpole's article was an editorial (redacted remark --TS 21:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC) ), the WSJ article is speculative on all but the basic facts and the opinion of some commentators, and the WP claims the event "raises questions", but again does not support any factual claims of wrongdoing on behalf of the scientists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. It's clear that they are in no way established facts; indeed, since the reports published by Penn State and the House of Commons refute most of the allegations, it would be grossly misleading to give the impression that they are established facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Something like this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyitspeter (talk • contribs) 19:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The emails prompted widespread publicity and allegations that they showed climate scientists manipulated data, withheld scientific information, and tried to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published.

Above proposals added added by Heyitspeter (talk • contribs) 19:05, 4 April 2010, missing sig added by dave souza, talk 20:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• There are problems with these proposals. Firstly, sources. You've given a malformed link to what should be Data-leak lessons learned from the 'Climategate' hack and your use of that early speculative article appears a stretch, something to discuss in the body of the article if appropriate and not a good source for the lead.
  The Washington post article doesn't seem to show any allegation about manipulating data or withholding information, but does say "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." Note how that's confirmation that only a tiny minority took that view, your proposal gives them undue weight but it is a useful source to show how few supported claims regarding non-publication of fringe papers.
  Delingpole's blog is a blog, and unsuitable, particularly because of the BLP implications.
  The WSJ, again an early report, doesn't seem to say anything about withholding info, but does show the fringe claims about "dissenting" papers being "suppressed". That needs context as the papers were either not suppressed, or were rejected because of lack of quality. Later sources give better coverage to that issue. The Guardian isn't linked here, but as I recall is specific that the allegations were by climate change sceptics, an important point which you've failed to include. Not an improvement. You seem to have made many of these changes in the article, I'll review that carefully but given the above issues a revert may be the only sensible option. dave souza, talk 20:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Vindication is not yet properly reflected in the lede

The lede of this article still, as of the most recent edit, gives undue weight to facially ridiculous claims that have now been blown out of the water by a Commons Select Committee that has said, of charges of dishonesty, that there is "no case to answer".

The lede should be changed now to focus on the manifest falsehood of the allegations, rather than the false allegations themselves.

This is the most significant aspect of the case: that after months of corrosive falsehoods being given free countenance by the press, the House of Commons Select Committee looked at the damaging submissions of the most interested parties and rejected them.

Moreover, claims by the ICO have been repeated in the lede but the fact that the Commons Select Committee's press release specifically singled out the ICO for criticism for its unsupported accusations is not reported in the lede:

We regret that the ICO made a statement to the press that went beyond that which it could substantiate and that it took over a month for the ICO properly to put the record straight. We recommend that the ICO develop procedures to ensure that its public comments are checked and that mechanisms exist to swiftly correct any mis-statements or misinterpretations of such statements. (Paragraph 91) [55]

This is also an error that must be corrected. This is an encyclopedia so getting the facts wrong is not an option. There are serious BLP issues. The reputations of scientists have been wrongly harmed by our own indolence and indulgence of the ignorant, the stupid and the malicious. That kind of feckless editing must stop or it will be stopped. --TS 22:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good as it is. It explains the accusations and issues and presents the outcome so far. I found only one flaw. Phil Jones is still not back at work(?) so the sentence should read "... has stood aside for the duration of the reviews." or something similar. Has there been any news of Phil Jones plans for the future? He is not a young man so he might decide to retire. The stress must be awful.130.232.214.10 (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Tony, we can't yet say that the UEA/CRU have been completely vindicated, since two of the three reviews are still outstanding - all we can say at this stage is that the Commons select committee has largely exonerated them. I expect that all three reviews will come to similar conclusions, so we can be more definitive then, but right now it's too early for a definitive verdict. I am sympathetic to your concerns about the treatment of the ICO's comments in the lede, though - we should certainly note the caveats associated with it (no formal investigation, criticised by the select committee, etc). Please feel free to add an appropriate form of words. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This edit removed the clear statement supported, by the sources cited in the relevant section, that the allegations were initiated and spread by self-described "climate skeptics", this removed mention of the clear statements made by numerous commentators and independent investigations at the time that the accusations were generally baseless, and this removed a brief mention of the point stated by the university and confirmed by the Select Committee, that the ICO's (informal) statement to the press was premature, lacked supporting investigation, and was widely misinterpreted by the media. The cumulative effect of these changes is to misrepresent the sources and to slant that part of the lead to show only the accusations, omitting the aspect of the controversy of views supporting the scientist and thus blatantly failing to meet WP:NPOV standards, particularly WP:WEIGHT. Given the sanctions on these articles I'm reluctant to simply reintroduce these important statements, though that could be justified as WP:BLP concerns as not being counted as a revert. Will think it over, if others care to revise the lead to cover these points that would be very welcome. . dave souza, talk 03:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(r to CrisO)But the opening is still unbalanced in my opinion, it states that there are allegations of wrongdoing and that investigations are in progress, but there used to be a sentence summarizing the University's denial of the allegations. Also, haven't there been a great number of people who have stated that most/all of the allegations are baseless. In my opinion their statements should be give at least equal weight to the allegations. Something along the lines of: UEA has denied any wrongdoing/called the allegation baseless. Scientists/researchers/commentators have generally supported UEA, etc.—eric 06:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, WP:WEIGHT requires us to give due weight to the mainstream view when showing the minority attacks which, as the sources show, primarily came from climate change sceptics. Your suggestion of commentators etc. calling "some or all" of the accusations baseless is good, I've incorporated it, taking care to cite sources which should not be necessary in the lead, but may halp with discussions. . dave souza, talk 10:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your assessment of the situation with the ICO. The committee criticizes Smith's original statement: "...requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as the should have been under the legislation..." as beyond that which the ICO could substantiate. That there was prima facie evidence of some kind of FOI violation is not challenged by the committee and is in fact repeated in some measure in their report: "There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000."

That said, the sentence in question should not appear in the lede. I suspect some readers will misinterpret "prima facie evidence", and a fair summary of Smith's statements and the committee's response requires much more space than that available in the opening. Besides which, it follows a sentence about sharing "scientific data", implying the ICO statement was about some "raw data" rather than some particular emails, a mistake made by a number of journalists. The whole thing is so trivial and confusing i would probably remove the whole article section—there's is no way it should be as is in the lede.—eric 04:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit of a complex and relatively minor issue, but it's also been used as an important propaganda claim. There's also the point made by the ICO and noted in the committee report that press reports were inaccurate. It's something to cover, but is covered in the lead by the more general mention of refusing to give info to critics. If it is mentioned specifically in the lead, we must summarise the state of understanding of the ICO statement, and not just show it as an uncontested accusation. . . dave souza, talk 10:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This revision appears to me to be consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, as well as WP:LEAD. It's the first time since this article was moved that I felt able to say this. Personally I would advocate adding a general quantifier like "numerous" to the words "allegations from climate change skeptics" with a few more citations in support of the word "numerous"-- or some other reasonable way of making clear that especially in the early stages of the controversy there were many blogs, opinion pieces and editorials which put forward views highly critical of the CRU and of climate science generally. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Good idea about "numerous" or the like, that part of the lead is currently cited to the same references that were used previously. A more detached source would be Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies | Environment | guardian.co.uk which opens with "Almost all the media and political discussion about the hacked climate emails has been based on soundbites publicised by professional sceptics and their blogs. In many cases, these have been taken out of ­context and twisted to mean something they were never intended to." and seems to cover the point reasonably well. The article is already cited, ref name="Guardian 9 Feb part2">, perhaps you could think of a form of words and edit accordingly? Thanks, dave souza, talk 13:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Move on you lot

This page has had almost 16,000 edits. It is one of the most highly edited article talk pages. See Wikipedia:Database_reports/Pages_with_the_most_revisions. Come on you lot. It is time to move on. There is plenty of work to do elsewhere, including the climate change articles. Your editing time is wasted here. There are many other more important articles and that need editing and maintenance that needs doing. Also, stop wasting WP server resources on this bickering... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

plenty of work to do elsewhere, including the climate change articles - you mean like Talk:Global warming and Global warming? Okay I know that's a more core article and has existed for a lot longer. Anyway don't worry too much, [56] shows people here are also editing 2009–10 Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team, Talk:Woman and Aiphanes so we know they're contributing to at least two (sic :-P) other useful articles. BTW, considering the stats, you may want to consider a simple message to the editors of List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees. (Also who knew SandyGeorgia was so popular?) P.S. Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We're only at 151?! Clearly, we're not arguing enough. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of characterization that can be upsetting to editors who are working to make a better article. I think the amount of arguing we're doing is not outside of wikipedia guidelines and should not be considered insufficient! I would also argue that we are not actually arguing at all, instead I would argue that we are discussing, and I would like further discussion of this to be quelled unless a strong counter-argument can be brought to bear.

Let it be said, the above was written in the name of humor to decrease tension and further a lighter atmosphere that might be welcoming to future edits. It is not intended to paint any editors or edits in an unkind light. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP vio

The recent reversion here goes against talk page discussion in the #Vindication is not yet properly reflected in the lede section above, and violates BLP by misrepresenting the information shown in sources and reintroducing a biased and one-sided picture of views about accusations made against living people. I've asked the editor to undo this reversion to an earlier lead paragraph as a matter of urgency. Will review shortly. . . dave souza, talk 18:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Update – thanks for undoing that ill advised edit, Hans.[57] In my view this is covered by WP:BLP and so should not be counted in terms of 1RR. . . dave souza, talk 18:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What specifically is the WP:BLP violation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me first say why leads in contentious articles traditionally do have citations: Because there is often a lot of POV pushing going on, with editors on both sides having a tendency to overstate their case when they feel they can get away with it because there is no need to attach a source that is obviously not reliable or one that clearly says less than what they use it of.

Now here is the BLP violation: "Claims that data requested under the Freedom of Information Act had been wrongly withheld were given credence by the Information Commissioner's Office." It is my understanding that a researcher, in what was supposed to be a private email to a friend, expressed his anger about a "sceptical" colleague by stating an intent to delete the information requested. The commission called this "prima facie evidence" of a breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and that's precisely what it is. This does not mean that they believe ("give credence to") that any such breach occurred. The researcher might just as well have written that he wanted to kill the "sceptic", which would have been "prima facie evidence" that he did that, obviously contradicted by the fact that the other guy is still alive. If anger and hyperbole were crimes, the Wikimedia Foundation would be very busy answering requests for the IP addresses of most editors involved in this talk page.

That the term "prima facie evidence" should be avoided because it could be misunderstood by readers was already mentioned above. The solution is not for us as editors to do the misunderstanding and replace the term by something stronger, so that even readers with a legal background are misled by the article. Hans Adler 18:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree (as always) that the lead needs citations. Here's a link to the relevant policy: WP:LEADCITE.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• In response to the question as to what specifically is the WP:BLP violation, the policy requires strict adherence to our three core content policies, and makes specific requirements to make sure we get the article right. "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject," but AQFK's edit removed information defending the living persons, and having removed inline citations, misrepresented the cited sources to show only negative material in a partisan manner. That was not the only problem, as for example Hans shows above. Not acceptable. . . dave souza, talk 19:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again (deja vu all over again)

Sadly, a series of edits appears to whitewash the scandal yet again - including the removal of the word 'scandal'. I've re-added the {NPOV} template. Do not remove this until the dispute has been settled. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to tell us which series of edits? Or where exactly you would like to include a well-sourced usage of the word 'scandal'? I see you have the tag back, but please do share what it is we are meant to discuss with you. --Nigelj (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm heading out for Easter family festivities. However, there's the undue weight given to the brief investigation conducted by the HoC. There's the removal of 'scandal' from the article. But I'll write more later. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

A bizarre comment. The Select Committee took evidence from those making the accusations as well as from those defending the scientists, and an all-party group reached careful and well documented conclusions based on the available evidence. Not the final and definitive investigation, as we note, but vastly better as a source than the rushed, often biased and inaccurate, news stories we've largely been using so far. As to the "scandal", there are evidently different opinions as to what the scandal comprises. Disgraceful misrepresentation of science by profit-driven news media comes to mind. We need to be very careful in using such news sources when presenting any accusations about living persons. . dave souza, talk 20:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)