Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Problems with "Naming of the incident" section

This section opens with a quote from "Fact Check", which seems to have nothing to do with the history of the name.

Here's the FC quote in full:

Analysis Skeptics claim this trove of e-mails shows the scientists at the U.K. research center were engaging in evidence-tampering, and they are portraying the affair as a major scandal: "Climategate." Source

Note that the title of Fact Check's article is “Climategate” -- our quote (by my reading) simply reiterates the article name. So this quote appears inappropriate for this section's lede.

The entire section appears overweight and, to my eye, appears to exist mainly to provide a justification for removing Climategate from the article lede. Am I missing something? --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a source that has been seen as neutral by editors of different sympathies in the debate, and its analysis of the debate clearly indicates that the term is used in "portraying the affair as a major scandal" rather than a tempest in a teapot, as others would have it. The section describes naming of the incident, and the WP:LEAD summarises the content of the article so, if anything, the section provides justification for the inclusion of "climategate" in the lead. The views of any other similarly neutral observers on this topic will also be welcome provided of course that they're attributable, so do please find sources we can add. . . dave souza, talk 17:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I note the present wording, "Individuals who oppose action on global warming called the incident Climategate, which became a commonly used term for the incident." Um, seriously? "Individuals who oppose action on global warming" named the incident "Climategate"? Um, it just got called that by the media, and those who don't like the name probably just need to get over it. This is original research, and bias, and just plain wrong. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to be a rather blatant example of poisoning the well. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty well established that the term was coined by anti-science activists in the blogosphere. The media latched onto it because it's catchy and because they're lazy - they didn't coin it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This very article suggests that it isn't well-established. --Heyitspeter (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty well established? You say that, giving not a single piece of evidence, just like the article. What evidence can there be; RealClimate didn't use the term, ergo...? Evidence, please. This is sheer fantasy. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how the newly minted "glaciergate" can be compared with "climategate" in relation to the naming issue? I would suggest that an editor create such an article. Ref.[6] P.S. I sincerely hope I haven't screwed anything up as this is my first edit on wikipedia. 130.232.214.10 (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet another pov name for an issue, one that's covered at Criticism of the IPCC AR4. . dave souza, talk 18:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fact Check citation inappropriate for subsection: proposed removal

This discussion got kind of de-railed. I take your point to be that the Fact Check article doesn't appear to be asserting that skeptics named the incident "Climategate" in that quote, and that it should be taken out of that section. Is that fair? If so I'd agree.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say whether or not skeptics introduced the term, it does express the view that they're using the name and why. A neutral finding. . . dave souza, talk 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that skeptics use the term. Re-read? It's weirdly phrased.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's clear enough–"Skeptics claim this trove of e-mails shows the scientists at the U.K. research center were engaging in evidence-tampering, and they are portraying the affair as a major scandal: "Climategate.".... We find such claims to be far wide of the mark." Clearly that's what they're portraying it as, and the name they're using. Pretty obvious. . . dave souza, talk 18:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course they're using the name - that isn't informative. Even MIT is using the name. As this section is about the "naming of the incident," and not "the way the incident is being referred to," we should remove that sentence. Agreed on this count? I'm willing to cede on your interpretation if/given that the removal stands on these (separate) grounds.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept your concession, but consider this independent source on the naming and framing of the "controversy" a useful clarification which belongs at the start of the naming section. The fact that MIT World™ used the term in announcing a debate doesn't mean that MIT have officially adopted the term, and is synthesis – if you can find a third party analysis stating that the term has entered the mainstream, that would be useful. However, picking examples, expecially where reporters distance themselves from the term by using inverted commas for "climategate", is original research and not the way to go. Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 10:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've not picked any such examples...

Be that as it may, and backed by a rather ingenious double deployment of "modus tollens+the two preceding comments" and modus ponens, here I go:

It simply isn't true that

Skeptics claim this trove of e-mails shows the scientists at the U.K. research center were engaging in evidence-tampering, and they are portraying the affair as a major scandal: 'Climategate.'

means

Skeptics are using or have named the affair 'Climategate'.

To argue the contrary one must break WP:OR. The sentence is uninformative and irrelevant to the section. It should go. QED.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As stated before, it's plain English, and you've offered no alternative interpretation. Restoring, sorry didn't keep coming back on your keeping coming back on this. Thanks, dave souza, talk 00:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/28/cru_foia_guilty/ - UK Authorities wanted to prosecute those at CRU, but loopholes in law wouldn't allow it. The 'email hacking' incident has uncovered highly suspect behavior, regarding evasion of FOI requests, prompting a desire to change relevant laws. "The leaked emails are widely believed to be the work of an insider in response to the delaying tactics." I and many people have commented on this issue, THAT THE HACKING INCIDENT WAS NOT VERIFIED AND THAT THE MEDIA REPORTS SUGGESTING SUCH WERE UNFOUNDED.128.61.127.19 (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

More Literature

• The Hockey Stick Illusion - Climategate and the Corruption of Science, Andrew W. Montford[7]

Publisher: Stacey International[8] (2010)

This book is NOT self-published. Please add this to the article. 85.76.37.150 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Add what to the article? You have not suggested any content that would use this book as a source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Two books have covered Climategate. One was suggested in the subsection below (hidden) and found unsuitable so I suggested this one instead. Why not add a passage such as "The resultant controversy has so far inspired two books covering the controversy." Or "a book", take you pick. I find this a fairly reasonable request. 85.76.37.150 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The book isn't notable enough to garner a section in this article. No reliable secondary sources adress the book in nearly enough detail to make it, in and of itself, even a footnote. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reviews of it in the mainstream press or scholarly journals. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it notable in the extreme that two books have been published regarding a hacking incident at a University in little less than two months after the fact.85.76.37.150 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not what you find notable; our inclusion standards look at what third party sources find notable (through book reviews, cites, etc.). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's on the Dutch version of this page. I would like to take this to a vote: "raise your hands" if you find it notable that two books have been published in record time regarding a controversy regarding a hacking incident at a University. As simple yes on no will do.85.76.37.150 (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't vote here. Hipocrite (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at it this way. If we were talking for instance about a persons biography we would note "... and has published two books." That is common sense notable. There is no need to explain the contents in detail. Writing a book is a major endeavor that should be recognized.85.76.37.150 (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If we were writing about an author, there would be a source demonstrating the notability of that person. We do not mention that there are thousands of books on David_(Michelangelo). It's just not a notable feature of this controversy that a bunch of blogers wrote vanity press books. Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. The merits of who wrote the book can have no bearing on the notability of the action of writing a book in this context. If the hacking incident were not notable there would be no page to write about and no point to our discussion. As there is a page there is a point.85.76.37.150 (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Who wrote a book is unimportant in most cases. But in order to have the book mentioned in this article, it itself should be notable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A blogger who thinks McIntyre is wonderful writes a book, and tacks a topical few words at the end – "Note that it was largely written before the emails from CRU became public, though there is a final chapter dealing quickly with them." Clearly reflecting fringe views, not a source for the science. . . dave souza, talk 20:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about science. The science is not a concern. The controversy has resulted in two books, a major endeavor. The quality of content is irrelevant.85.76.37.150 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't care if it took ten years to write a book. If it's not notable, it doesn't belong here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't really about a scientific topic though. If a layman writes a book about this specific incident and gets widespread coverage then it could potentially be mentioned here. That hasn't happened so far though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are the rankings. But I would like to point out they are the #1 and #2 ranking books on Climategate. ;-) What ranking is needed to qualify?

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,268 in Books[9] Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: #1,373 in Books[10]85.76.37.150 (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Amazon rank, Amazon rank... nope, not in Wikipedia:Notability (books) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

85.76.37.150, do you have anything to do with the book's publishers or authors? Because this looks very much like an attempt to promote a non-notable book. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no connection. I haven't even read the books! The book could be complete crap or excellent for all I know. (P.S. could be a new IP yet again...)130.232.202.241 (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My primary motivation was irritation with Scjessey on his "fair" review on Amazon.com as he had not even read the book. Bad form.130.232.202.241 (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion. I would classify it as the mostest awesomest review in the history of the world, EVAR! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would call it a factual assessment of your review. You should not judge a book by it's cover. This review should be held against you to show prejudice. My motive, irritation, gave me the energy persevere with a fact based and logical response. I managed to separate feelings and prejudice when suggesting this entry. My suggestions was debated in a constructive manner and I hope this gave something of value to the debate. Goodbye for now as I need to take break for paid work. (Oh. Amazon rankings were mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability (books), a gray area I think.)130.232.214.10 (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bestsellers in Environmental Science on Amazon.com: #1 James Hansen, #2 Rachel Carson, #5 Al Gore and at #8 the book in question. Also at #10 Michael E. Mann.[11] I may be worth nothing that according to Wikipedia:Notability (books) "There is no present agreement on how high a book must fall on Amazon's sales rank listing (in the "product details" section for a book's listing) in order to provide evidence of its notability or non-notability."91.153.115.15 (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I found an inconsistency in [12] subsection "Conservative nature of IPCC reports". "In his December 2006 book, Hell and High Water: Global Warming, and in an interview on Fox News on January 31, 2007, energy expert Joseph Romm noted that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is already out of date and omits recent observations and factors contributing to global warming, such as the release of greenhouse gases from thawing tundra." Why is a Fox News interview and a Book published by a News Corp subsidiary OK as a source in this case and why can't the climategate article even passingly mention that two books have been published about the climategate controversy? Should the IPCC article be edit or should this one be amended?91.153.115.15 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to the first paragraph

A rough consensus is forming (see earlier section) for the following text to replace the first paragraph of the lede:

The Climatic Research Unit hacking incident came to light in November 2009 when it was discovered that thousands of e-mails and other documents had been obtained through the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England. The subsequent dissemination of the material caused a controversy, dubbed "Climategate", about whether or not the e-mails indicated misconduct by climate scientists. The University of East Anglia described the incident as an illegal taking of data. The police are conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach and subsequent personal threats made against some of the scientists mentioned in the e-mails.

I am, therefore, turning this into a formal proposal and seek to build a consensus. I believe this has reasonable support from both "sides" of the debate, and so I request supports/opposes/comments to get a general idea of how this might be received. If adopted, it will mean the second paragraph will also need a little bit of revising, but we can get to that next. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC) - Note: This subsection broken out of earlier section and moved here. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Concern "dubbed" by who? Hipocrite (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  That's a valid concern, but I believe the assertion is well qualified in the body of the article with the "Naming of the incident" section, although "Naming of the controversy" would be more accurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - takes a refreshingly neutral approach with no clear injection of opinion, well weighted. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 13:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• CommentSupport – In many ways, a nice improvement over the existing wording, reflecting the opinions of many contributors. While I personally don’t feel the coverage of the personal threats belongs anywhere in the article, I don’t feel strongly enough to fight for its removal. However, it doesn’t come close to meriting a mention in the opening sentence. If a period is placed after “breach”, I’ll support. SPhilbrickT 13:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  Er... that bit is already in the first paragraph; the result of an earlier consensus-building discussion. The new bit under consideration is the second sentence, and the rest of the paragraph is there for contextual convenience. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  I’m under the weather at the moment, so not up for the research necessary at the moment, but my recollection is that I and others have objected numerous times to the inclusion in the lede. At one time, it said deaths threats – if “personal threats” was the result of a census based compromise, I may have missed it, but it doesn’t change my opinion – the coverage of the personal threats has been tiny, and there’s no evidence that they amounted to anyone other than usual bluster of idiots. I’m not challenging that some coverage exists, but if this coverage is sufficient to deserve mention in the lede, every single article on every single President would have an entry in the first sentence. SPhilbrickT 14:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  The sentence you are talking about is covered in another section on this talk page, and you are free to address this matter in that other section. This discussion is about the new sentence that seeks to address the concerns of those who want "Climategate" covered in the first paragraph. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  I reviewed the other sections and added my objection there. My reading of the discussion is that it did not receive consensus, but merely remained due to exhaustion of the participants. I like most of what you wrote, but it contains phrasing which was not the result of consensus.SPhilbrickT 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  Changed to support subject to the condition that my support not be construed as support for the inclusion of the “personal threats” phrase, and after we complete this discussion, I will open a discussion about that phrase (discussed without reaching a consensus upthread)SPhilbrickT 17:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you. I'd like to reiterate for the benefit of all interested parties that comments in support of the proposed wording shall not be misconstrued as comments in support of the entire paragraph. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - support if the new text reflected what's already in the article per Scjessey's observation above, change to something like "...dubbed Climategate by climate change skeptics..." Also support Sphilbrick's suggestion to delete the attack portion.Mirboj (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  Who actually "dubbed" the controversy "Climategate" is not easy to fairly encapsulate with the brevity expected in the lede of the article. I'd much rather see this vaguely summarized in the lede (as in this proposal) and have it properly explored in the body of the article. Again, what you call the "attack portion" is not under discussion in this section, and trying to cover that ground here may potentially derail this effort. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  As currently written, the article attributes use of the term "climategate" to skeptics, if the lede reflects what's in the article this change should garner more support. Mirboj (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  Well you would think so, but this is a more complex situation. This is an attempt to erect a "bigger tent". Many of the contributing editors here are unhappy with the specific language in the body of the article that you refer to, but are still keen to see the term "Climategate" appear in the first paragraph of the lede in some form. By being deliberately ambiguous about the term's origin in the lede, we are able to (hopefully) come to an agreement that gives that first paragraph some stability. The lede has been the primary reason for edit warring on this article, so stability is an admirable goal. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Seems reasonable NickCT (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The trouble with this argument is that by "seek[ing] to address the concerns of those who want X" and attempting to erect ever bigger tents, it means that for every half-dozen new WP:SPAs that extreme right-wing and other fringe blogs can send us, provided they have the tenacity to add to the disruption for a few weeks, we will erect a bigger tent, incorporate a bit more of their views, and eventually, their purpose is served and WP suffers a little more. --Nigelj (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  While I appreciate your concern, I think it is reasonable to say that we are quite capable of identifying the difference between regular editors and SPAs. As long as the origin of the term "Climategate" is properly exposed covered in the body of the article, I do not see this as a slippery slope issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  I wish Nigel would stop throwing out inflamatory remarks regarding people that he disagrees with. Continued attempts to frame this as right-wing extremism is certainly not a very civil approach, and it makes it hard to believe that you can compromise with anyone that you don't agree with. Arzel (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  That is not a helpful contribution either. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Thanks for taking the lead on this. JPatterson (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm surprised there haven't been more responses yet. It seems that everyone is too busy with teh dramaz to care about improving the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  The problem, it seems, is the all-or-nothing crowd, which has members on both "sides" of the debate. Just because we can't find consensus on everything all at once doesn't mean we can't make positive changes in one or two areas at a time. It seems everyone agrees that the proposed edit is a move in the right direction. For now, let's stick with that. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  Thus far, most of the responses have come from the those who are generally skeptical of AGW (with one or two exceptions). I'd like to see responses from some of the others before declaring any sort of consensus. There will come a point, however, where WP:SILENCE kicks in. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Seems like a fair compromise to me over everything which has been debated. --mark nutley (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support with condition Climategate needs to be Bolded in the section. It is the term to which this will be known for all time. Arzel (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  That is not the case. "Climategate" refers to the controversy that followed the hacking incident. It is not directly synonymous with what this article describes, but merely a subset of it (albeit it a significant one). As such, it is technically incorrect for "Climategate" to be rendered in a bold typeface; however, it is certainly something that can be discussed. Are you explicitly stating that you are opposed to this proposal if your condition isn't met? I feel I should point out that if no consensus is found here, the existing text will remain in place. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  SCJ: per WP:MOS & WP:REDIR, redirects to the main title are to be bolded when used in the article text. Also note that "redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy." --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  That's not strictly correct. Both of these are just guidelines, and can easily be overridden by local consensus; nevertheless, it remains an open question and I am personally okay with it being in bold type if this proposal is implemented. Do you support this proposal, or did you just want to comment about this related issue? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  Not to speak for Pete, but I would suggest that in the interest of moving things forward, the question of whether to bold the word "Climategate" or not should probably wait until consensus is determined for or against the proposed wording. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK, Conditional support, conditional on bolding Climategate in the lede para. I don't think I've ever seen an article where an alternate (redirect) title wasn't bolded -- and, as I've just demonstrated, WP code automatically bolds the redirect in its article. Huh. Well, it shows up bold in the Preview..., Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I like to see closure on this issue. I think the proposed change would allow us to take a big step forward toward removal of the non-NPOV banner. It's been up for days now, the comments have been positive from one-side of the gully and silence from the other. I'd say that's about as close to consensus as we get around here. Going once, going twice? ... JPatterson (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been 2½ days, with no "opposes" and plenty of activity in other threads. I hate to claim consensus by virtue of WP:SILENCE, but we are getting into that territory. Let's wait until the 3-day mark (approx midnight UTC) before doing anything. In the meantime, we should give a little thought as to how this change will impact the second paragraph. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WTF? Is "concern" not an "oppose" unless it's bold? Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I read "concern" as "question", so I provided what I thought was a reasonable response. I took your lack of response to my comment as an agreement that your concern had been addressed. Sorry if I misunderstood. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I raised a concern, and I don't believe it was adressed. I can't agree to the inclusion of climategate without mention of who uses and created the name - the bigger tent argument is great and all, but it dosen't seem like there's any give at all from the other "side" of this tent, so, no. Hipocrite (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's handled by the "Naming of the incident" section, although I think it should be "Naming of the controversy". -- Scjessey (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it help to alleviate your concern if we added "(see Naming of the Controversy)" after "Climategate") in the proposal above? JPatterson (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So let's remove "climategate" from the lede alltogether, because it's handled by the naming of the incident section. Or, we could add "swifthack," because that's included in the naming of the incident section also. Hipocrite (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you must have missed much of the conversation that led to this proposal. It was based on the fact that "Climategate" refers to the controversy (not the incident). "Swifthack", in contrast, refers to the incident itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather, swifthack refers to the same thing climategate refers to, except to note that it is, in the opinion of the person calling it swifthack a manufactured controversy. I'm not willing to give an inch to have a mile taken here, so sorry. The current lede works fine. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's some astounding bad faith there. How about you meditate over on the probation page until you can conform to it. Arkon (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - The proposed text is significantly better and clearer that what we have - and I see consensus supporting this change as well. We're not going to get 100% agreement here. Time to implement. Ronnotel (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  I would still prefer to give it a little more time, since this is the first paragraph of the lede. I don't want to jump the gun and start an edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Looks pretty good to me. Nicely done. Arkon (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I concur. SunSw0rd (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - It's been well over 3 days and that should have been enough time for everyone to have had a gander and made their preferences known. Apart from a few comments expressing concern, there is near unanimous support for this change. I believe consensus can be fairly assumed. I am, therefore, going to go ahead an stick it in the article. I will then review the second paragraph to make sure it makes sense with the changes to the first. If there are any last-minute objections, please express them below rather than reverting the change. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support iff the bolding of Climategate don't get thrown out. Nsaa (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Code section

The code section was utter rubbish, based on a misunderstanding by Newsnight on the difference between research / graphical code and the actual code used to construct the series, so I've removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I reinserted it, you need to prove newsnight was wrong with reliable sources, newsnight say they got it right after all. --mark nutley (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Newsnight isn't a RS for code. They are hopelessly wrong; and you don't have the ability to judge either. Incidentally, complaining about blind reverts which aren't is a bit off when blind unthinking reverting is exactly what you've done - have you considered being civil? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think it was a blind revert? I read it first. Newsnight is a RS, it does not matter if your pov thinks it is not. As stated, give reliable sources proving newsnight got it wrong or leave the text in. --mark nutley (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, do not lecture me on being civil after saying this and you don't have the ability to judge either I am capable of reading and understanding a great many things --mark nutley (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Relax, everyone. No need for this fuss. I've commented on WMC's talk page asking him to seek consensus for bold removals. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes i saw that, thank you. mark nutley (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:V aren't going to allow you to remove Newsnight. --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

P'raps WMC has a reliable source which backs his claim. Then again, p'raps WMC should brush up a bit on WP:OR. Nightmote (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the Newsnight stuff was roundly discredited. Our own article has a source on this matter, so it seems that WMC was right. That's not an excuse for carving it out without prior discussion though. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't say one way or the other. Newsnight's "expert" (I don't know the fellow) says it's climate change code. The author of the opinion piece says it's not. Probably the author spoke to someone or read something that contradicts that position but (as the author points out) Newsnight hasn't retracted the story and the author didn't produce a name or any touch-and-feel truth. Until a reliable source refutes it, the statement bears weight. Nightmote (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you chose to respond here and ignore my points below, NM. However, if you read the Guardian piece you will find, "Neither of the two pieces of code Newsnight examined were anything to do with the HadCRUT temperature record at all, which is actually maintained at the Met Office". That is a statement of fact, not opinion. Myles Allen is head of the Climate Dynamics group at University of Oxford's Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department, so it is reliably sourced to an informed and capable scientist. That one fact means that all the speculation in the world about how bad the code was is irrelevant - we don't know what it was written or used for. --Nigelj (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Guardian piece" is an op-ed.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "ignore" anything, Nigel. Little quick to jump to conclusions, there. You will forgive me, I'm sure, but I must have missed the part about what Myles says the code was for. He does claim that it's not part of the HadCRUT record, alright, but as far as I can see that's kind of where he stops. Is that record available to the public? Has anyone compared it to the Newsnight-identified code? A comparison like that would certainly be a great reliable source, I'd say, and would definitively show that the code wasn't used there. Good catch! Nightmote (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed removal

Following Nightmote Hipocrite's reorganization of this section, I'd like to propose we remove the second paragraph completely. Stuff like "various editorials and blogs have stated" and a quote from Declan McCullagh that adds nothing but crystal ball gazing "what-iffery" isn't worthy of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(insert joke) That is *not* my child. Nightmote (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. My bad. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. That edit is mine. It was undone. I support redoing it, and I also support removing the second paragraph wich adds nothing. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There are sources, reliable sources and then there's reality. In reality no one actually knows what that code was used for, if anything other than experiments, teaching and playing. There are hundreds of useless sources (blogs etc) that would like to use the code to prove all kinds of nonsense, there is even one 'reliable source', that as WMC says were well out of their editorial depth and allowed a piece of nonsense to be aired. Then there are a few actual reliable sources like The Guardian above who actually know that the code proves nothing until we know what it was used for. I don't think we can really be expected to give equal weight to all the nonsense next to the reality. Once the investigations are in, we may know what the code was used for, and where they keep the real stuff that was used in the published papers. Until then, can we trim this section down to saying that there was some code, but no one knows what it was written or used for? Which accords with reality. --Nigelj (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Nutley has presented it as a reliably-sourced fact, Nigel. If you don't like it, the burden lies with you to find a relibale source that proves that the code is something other than what his source says it is. Otherwise this article becomes nothing more than POV-pushing from the uninformed who are unable (or unwilling) to understand the science. Nightmote (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that's not really true, is it. We have it on good authority from an expert in this field that the Newsnight piece was pretty much nonsense, akin to criticizing a clay mockup of a car for the way it drives. Also, one actually has to question whether or not Newsnight is any more valid a reliable source as the opinion piece in the Guardian. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you paste specific sentences? or simply a proposed "final" version? As people have indicated the section is still actively/currently edited.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you guys debating this twice, here and in the subsection above? And if that's how you want to debate it, why don't you read the other thread? Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at University of Oxford's Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department, said (in print, in the Guardian) after the Newsnight broadcast, "Neither of the two pieces of code Newsnight examined were anything to do with the HadCRUT temperature record at all, which is actually maintained at the Met Office". That is a statement of fact (not opinion) reliably sourced to a domain expert. He went on to say that they said "this is climate change code", which means nothing until you know what, if any, use it was ever put to. So, while it is a fact that Newsnight wasted time and money on creating and broadcasting a meaningless piece of journalism, it is also a fact that we do not know what the code was written for. I think you need a reliable source that does know what it was for if you want to ignore the refutation of the Newsnight position ("this is climate change code" without saying what it was ever used for). --Nigelj (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, this section should really be removed completely, since it is mostly based on Newsnight's mistake. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Current" version

The CRU files also included temperature reconstruction programs written in Fortran and IDL, programmer comments and a readme file. In a BBC Newsnight report, software engineer John Graham-Cumming found the code to be "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software" because it lacked clear documentation or an audit history. Graham-Cumming also reported finding a bug in the code's error handling that could result in data loss. Other investigations posted in various editorials and blogs have stated that the comments and readme files indicate that the temperature reconstructions hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase and question the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record. In his CBS News blog, columnist Declan McCullagh stated that "East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit might have avoided this snafu by publicly disclosing as much as possible at every step of the way."

Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU. When he challenged Newsnight on this, they responded that "Our expert's opinion is that this is climate change code" and declined to retract the story. He commented that on the same basis the quality of code he put together for students could be used to discredit other research code.

--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed version

I propose the following, shortened version, written to take account, from the start, of our (i.e. everyone's) current ignorance as to purpose:

The CRU files also included temperature data processing software written in Fortran and IDL as well as programmer comments and a readme file. There is no indication as to the purpose of the code, nor any that it was ever used in the preparation of data for publication. Various sources, including a BBC Newsnight report, have found the code to be "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software" possibly including bugs and poor error handling.

Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU. When he challenged Newsnight on this, they responded that "Our expert's opinion is that this is climate change code" and declined to retract the story. He commented that on the same basis the quality of code he put together for students could be used to discredit other research code.

--Nigelj (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - Fine with me. Either that or get rid of the whole section. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose it as is, but I'm fine with working on it and have specific contentions that can be addressed. The "possibly including" is OR. Newsnight reported a bug, they didn't say that the code possibly included a bug. This sentence - "There is no indication as to the purpose of the code, nor any that it was ever used in the preparation of data for publication" - needs to be clearly cited and/or teased out so it's clear that the sources Newsnight, Washington Times and Computer World support it. --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In order to define a 'bug', you would have to know what the code was supposed to do. I believe the bug was that the software could drop or omit some data points. Without more detail, that might have been exactly what the code was meant to show students how to do. --Nigelj (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your other point is a negative. Someone else would have to provide a source that did show that it was used for some purpose, e.g. publication. --Nigelj (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

:) You appear to be saying that we should include unsourced assertions in the article until their contraries are sourced. I hope/expect that's not what you mean. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, and all that.

In any case, I think I've been misunderstood. My point is only that the sentence needs a clear citation or needs to be removed. --Heyitspeter (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It all needs to be removed. Newsnight screwed up. Funny thing is, a couple of months ago all the skeptics were apoplectic about how the "biased", "pro-AGW" BBC sat on the CRU data. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the connection to that affair, nor have I heard of it. As for Newsnight, it doesn't matter whether they screwed up. Remember WP:V. Feel free to find RS' that support your claim and add them to the article, though. As is we only have an op-ed piece. --Heyitspeter (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

[13] Ypur reliable source is an op-ed in CIF? no way, get a decent one please. Neither of the two pieces of code Newsnight examined were anything to do with the HadCRUT temperature record at all, which is actually maintained at the Met Office How can that statement even be right? Do you expect me to believe cru had no code at cru to work with? It was all kept at the met, pull the other one. Plus i have actually looked through a lot of the code files myself, it is most certainly what newsnight said it was. mark nutley (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Expert speaking on the topic of his expertise. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Come now kim, less sarcasm please. If our roles were reversed you would be asking for reliable sources would you not? mark nutley (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, your assumption of sarcasm is unfounded. The opinion published in the reliable source is that of a published expert on the subject, whose views could be acceptable for use as a rs even if self-published. Op-eds are inappropriate because newspaper editors aren't published experts on the specific subject, this is an expert opinion. . . dave souza, talk 07:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Newsnight is not a WP:RS on computer code. Myles is correct: the code concerned is not the code that constructs the record. MN is, as usual, defending anything anti-GW, regardless of reality William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on edits, not editors. In any case, according to WP:RS, "For information about academic topics, both scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are acceptable, depending on context." I don't see how anyone could argue that Newsnight (i.e., the BBC) is not an RS, especially given that they incorporated experts into their review process.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The quality of arguments against shortening or removing this section are very poor. I say, "No-one knows what the code is for" and everyone screams, "Prove it! Get a citation!". You don't need to cite a negative, you need to find a citation that does reliably know what the code was written for. It is obvious that no one knows, as there is no reliable source that says, "This code was written for X", there is only supposition. We have a reliable cite that Newsnight got it wrong and had no counterargument when this was pointed out. ("It's climate change code" doesn't help, it still leaves the question, written for what use? For testing? For teaching? As part a post-grad student's homework?) In the absence of any more rational argument I shall make the change proposed above. --Nigelj (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason you need a citation before adding that sentence is that its addition without the citation would be in direct violation of WP:PROVEIT, which states that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation," (not my emphasis) and of WP:OR.

(You are currently arguing that you don't need to cite statements phrased in the negative! If this were true it would be completely acceptable for me to add the sentence, "The CRU does not plan on continuing operations past the year 2011" to the lede of this article, since it's in the negative, and good luck finding a citation that states "The CRU is planning on continuing operations past the year 2011.")--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is in direct opposition to your position under #E-mail row unit 'broke data law' below, where you encourage people to add information (that you approve of) without discussion of the reliability of the source or their interpretation of it here. Once something is in, you fight like this to prevent it being removed or summarised differently. The Newsnight findings have been publicly discredited, yet we quote them as fact. The sentence you are so worried about is cited, to [14], which was always cited at the end. (I have explicitly cited the sentence itself now above.) The cite says, "Presumably, then, the quality of the code I use to put together problems for our physics undergraduates shows that we should not trust results from my colleagues who work on the Large Hadron Collider on the grounds that "it is all physics code"." How much clearer could he be? This is code that could have been used put together problems for undergraduates. It could have been used for anything! Find a reference to say what it was used for, or we will have to say, "There is no indication as to the purpose of the code, nor any that it was ever used in the preparation of data for publication", as in the proposal above. --Nigelj (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Below I said that where one is adding one sentence cited by an obvious RS (the BBC), you should feel comfortable adding it without discussing on talk. Here I pointed out that were you to add the sentence we're discussing now, which has no source at all, you would be in direct violation of WP:PROVEIT and WP:OR.

Here we have a whole paragraph sourced to a BBC citation that has been totally discredited, in print, by a domain expert, yet you are insisting on keeping the paragraph. It is now grossly misleading in the article, but you will not let it be updated or removed. --Nigelj (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't break/edit user comments. Nigelj, both sources are backed by domain experts. Also, you've just added the proposed addition, which goes against WP:DISRUPT and WP:CONSENSUS, violating the probation. Would you mind reverting yourself? --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the link you give here does not cite the sentence in question.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC has now removed this text three times without consensus, unless a WP:RS Is found, and not an op-ed in CiF it has to stay in further disruption will lead to an RFS. mark nutley (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally broken

We should not be discussing re-writing this section. It should be removed. It is totally and irrevocably broken. It contains gobbledegook of the Sokal hoax type: Graham-Cumming also reported finding a bug in the code's error handling that could result in data loss. - this is just wrong. The code does not work like that. We're not talking about real-time software that can lose data (obviously). You cannot drag in an outside "expert" who knows nothing about the code, have him read some undocumented fragments, and expect them to say anything useful. And indeed, he has said nothing useful William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC: Do you have a RS for your analysis? Otherwise it looks like WP:Original research to me. Note that I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong.... Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

@WMC:This goes against WP:OR and WP:V. You know better.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

@PT: we don't have a RS for what is there at the moment. Unless you think Newsnight is a RS for computer code? Come on, leaving aside the mob, you ought to know better William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You have already made both of these points in the above section and both have been responded to there. Adding them here just takes up more space-time. Please discuss them above if needed. --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

@WMC - not only are your conclusions OR, they are contradicted by other evidence. The readme file expresses concerns about code quality and database issues that effect "our flagship product". And Newsnight was not offering a journalistic opinion but rather reporting on an [John Graham-Cumming|expert opinion] from a notable source (John Graham-Cumming). The standard is verifiability not Truth, not even your Truth. JPatterson (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We have two poor sources that don't get to grips with the detail of the matter, and a better reliable source is sorely needed. John Graham-Cumming may have expertise in writing commercial code, but displays a lack of knowledge about "climate code". We have an expert source saying so, but all we really have from that is that is is unknown what the code was used for, teaching, experimental work, whatever. There's some info about in unreliable sources, but the uneasy balance of two non-ideal sources was not good. The issue does need to be covered when sources are found, deleting the section in the meantime leaves a void but is one acceptable solution. . . dave souza, talk 20:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No dave, that is not an acceptable solution. Any coder worth his salt can look at code to see how it works and what it is meant to do. We have newsnight a WP:RS plus of course we have the harry read me file. We know the code they used was junk, i looked at it and it is junk. There are plenty od climate data files released in the foi.zip, there is no reason to doubt that newsnight did not pick one of those to look over. Get a WP:RS disproving newsnights claims or give it up. mark nutley (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it has to come out, given these concerns. The person interviewed on Newsnight is not a climate scientist (or any kind of scientist, as far as I can tell). It's plainly non-expert commentary; as such, although it's been reported by a reliable source, the source's source is not reliable for this kind of interpretation. It's not really much different from asking a non-expert to opine on some other aspect of the science and then (falsely) presenting that non-expert opinion as somehow definitive. Sloppy reporting from Newsnight, basically. And btw Mark, whether or not you know how to read code is irrelevant - the question is did the code do what it was designed to do. If it did, it doesn't matter if it's not written to commercial standards, or indeed whether it's badly written or inelegant. You don't need a Ferrari to go to your local convenience store. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, all i am seeing is your opinions, not reliable sources debunking newsnight. Less opinions more proof please. --mark nutley (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Newsnight is certainly not a "better" reliable source than the expert opinion given in the Guardian. Right now, we really don't have any "cast-iron" sources for anything, which is why it would seem prudent to remove the section entirely. "If in doubt, leave it out!" What really pisses me off is that you lot are edit warring over the damn section. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the Guardian source by Myles Allen totally debunks the Newsnight 'analysis', as it shows that they forgot to ask what the code might be for. Since you guys can't agree to insert a wording that says that, then I too would rather remove it as it is totally fallacious at the moment, talking as it does about an irrelevance. And I too am angered that tag-teams are at it again in the article, with some parties not even sullying their hands here in the discussion. --Nigelj (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. It isn't our job to say what debunks what. We have RS on both sides, both are sticking with their story. The proper course in such a case is to do what we've done everywhere else in the article when faced with dueling interpretations (i.e. everywhere :>), put them both in. What makes this case any different? JPatterson (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not how it is at all. If this was the article on Barack Obama and we had one source saying that he is "the antichrist" and another source that says "he isn't", we wouldn't mention either. And I'm not kidding, BTW: Antichrist/Messiah Theories -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That hardly seems an apt analogy. There is no fringe side here. We have a notable expert in computer science quoted by a reliable source (WMC's opinion of the BBC not withstanding) contradicted by a non-computer scientist as reported in an equally reliable source. Report those facts and let the reader decide which makes the more compelling case. JPatterson (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt there's a reliable source which says Obama is the anti-Christ. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. There doesn't need to be in order to make my point. Anyway, I think it is clear that deleting the section is the only viable choice. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My point is that it's a poor analogy. BBC News is a reliable source. We don't remove content just because we don't like it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not BBC News. It's Newsnight - sort of like "60 minutes". And the Guardian piece is no less reliable. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

60 Minutes is a reliable source, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So, in summary, what we seem to have here is no-one thinking this should stay except for MN, who insists that he can't hear anyones arguements, and insists he can see no consensus for removal. We don't need a source debunking Newsnight (though we have one, viz Myles) because Newsnight isn't an RS in the first place William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope look in the section above, you will see it is not just i who says this should stay in. It is no fault of mine that people have broken this thread up into three pieces and that you can`y see those who are for it`s inclusion. mark nutley (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I see at least 5 editors objecting to its removal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

5 wrongs don't make a right LOL -- Scjessey (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And i see it has been rewritten by Nigelj, so now there was no temperature reconstruction programs in th .zip, it was data processing software. Way to rewrite history guys. Nigelj, please revert as you had no consensus for what you did. mark nutley (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. I had one objector - HeyItsPeter. And the sentence he objected to is not included. --Nigelj (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Say what now? Perhaps you should look again, we have 5 editors saying this text should remain and the usual suspects wanting to remove it and control the content of the article. Perhaps you should wait for consensus before making such WP:Bold changes on such a contentious article. --mark nutley (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The section should stay. On one side we have NewsNight and several op-eds and blogs stating that the code is an issue. On the other side we have a single op-ed that disagrees. And that's supposed to be an argument to remove the section? The speculation that these sources "don't know what they're talking about" is meaningless without a source. The assertion that "nobody knows what this code is for" also cannot be in the article without a source. Oren0 (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looking again at the section, it fails verification and npov policies, as well as appearing to include original research. Undue weight is given to the Newsnight report, which is a one-sided news story comparing old code which is apparently not in the finished product to finished modern code. That point is countered by expert opinion, but there's still not a detailed analysis of what the issues with the code are. The statement "Other investigations posted in various editorials and blogs have stated that the comments and readme files indicate that the temperature reconstructions hide and manipulate data...." is cited to one editorial in a disreputable newspaper with an anti-science Mooney background, and a report in Computerworld talking about the security lessons to be learnt from the breach, saying nothing about blogs and editorials. It does make the ill-informed comment that "In one document, a researcher explicitly acknowledges making up data sources". If my understanding is correct, that's a commented out reminder that arbitrary data was being deliberately introduced to test a program, and should not appear in the final product which it didn't. For any sort of balance, we should also say that other blogs (and editorials?) have strongly disputed these interpretations of the code,[15] but then we'd need good reliable sources making that analysis. While I'd like to see this issue given proper coverage, sticking to a stale news story and first responses to it doesn't give us the necessary sources to base this section on. Better sources urgently needed. . . dave souza, talk 12:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• It should be removed, fails relevance and RS criteria etc as (especially directly) above. Verbal chat 19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• I have to disagree with DS's contention that the Graham-Cumming's analysis, reported in a reliable source, fails verifiability, although I agree that the sentence on blogs should be removed. Graham-Cumming is a notable expert. Nor do I understand the argument that the Newsnight report is "one-sided". It states that Graham-Cumming is not a AGW skeptic, reiterates the mainstream scientific view re AGW and states that the spaghetti code (had to laugh at the string of GoTo statement visable as Graham-Cumming points to when talking about the bug) does not necessary imply the results are in error. See also my comments below discussing Allen's (non)-response. JPatterson (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything you both say (DS & V), except that if we delete the section then we are open to "The WP cabal won't even allow a section on the code". We also invite anybody who comes along to write up their own version. We only have two sources, one discredits the other, and we have the fact that there is no reliable source that knows what the code was written for (if there was one, someone would have found it by now). So, I suggest below a very thin, almost content-free section that says that we don't know much about the code, except that Newsnight was on the wrong track. It's only a stop-gap as I assume the inquiries will answer the questions once and for all. --Nigelj (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As this is causing such issues perhaps use both as suggested above? Leave the section as it stands and add in the piece from the guardian? Would this be acceptable? mark nutley (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is incresingly difficult to assume good faith with you, MN. Please review the multiple proposals belo... wait, you've already commented. It appears there is at least weak consensus right now to shrink the section, and a specific sentence is eagerly awaiting sources. Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading both sources, I can not see how the removal could be justified. Here's the relevant quote from the Allen in the guardian opinion piece:

Perhaps the most concrete example of journalists claiming to reveal "problems" with the CRU temperature record was a report on Newsnight (widely redistributed) in which a software engineer criticised computer code contained in the leaked email package. Neither of the two pieces of code Newsnight examined were anything to do with the HadCRUT temperature record at all, which is actually maintained at the Met Office. Newsnight's response, when I challenged them on this</quote>

But "problems with the CRU temperature record" is not what Graham-Cumming alleges. His findings is that the CRU code is poor documented, lacks an audit history and is poorly written. The commentator even states that this doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the final result. Graham-Cumming's criticism goes to process and controls at the CRU. He makes not comment on the end result. It seems to me that it is Allen's straw man critique which can not be sustained in that without examining every program in the hacked files, one can not say with any certainty that they had no impact on the result.

It is not our job to say who is right or wrong in this debate. The code is a notable part of the controversy and all we can do is fairly present both sides.JPatterson (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You left out the good bit, that follows your quote. He *destroys* the Newsnight analysis by pointing out that they forgot to ascertain what the code was actually ever used for. All they could say was "It's climate change code", but no one (repeat no one) knows whether it was ever used for any analysis that made it into any published paper. It could have been experimentation, doodling, examples created for teaching undergraduates; it could even have been some grad-student's homework that was awaiting marking. Allen gives the undergrad teaching example. These aren't two views, they are one view and a total disputation of that view that cannot be denied. --Nigelj (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not see in the source where he says anything like "they forgot to ascertain what the code was actually ever used for", but I think that implication is in the quote I provided above. The point Graham-Cumming is making about the lack of documentation and controls and generally amateurish programming practices goes to process and traceability, a valid concern even if the end results were not effected. Far from destroying the Newsweek analysis, Allen doesn't even address these issues. JPatterson (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at code section

Bold, revert, revert, revert, revert while discussing is not a good model for editing this or any other article. This is a developing story and improvements to the rest of the article are ongoing, making me loathe to lock it from editing. In the meantime, any further edits to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Code and documentation made absent consensus here will be considered edit warring. Edit warring is damaging to the encyclopedia, and may lead to your account being blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

To gauge the current consensus, can people indicate their preferred version of the 'Code and documentation' subsection below? --Nigelj (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This talk section is competely inappropriate. Per WP:Vote one simply can't force the minority to accept the majority view. A reliable source (which in and of itself is adequate) backed by an expert opinion (icing on the cake) has made a statement. Deleting it because an editor (or two or three) doesn't like it or feels that it's "obviously" wrong is inappropriate and counter to the way the editing process works. If two reliable sources specifically contradict each other on this issue, (and the Guardian and the BBC would seem to qualify as reliable sources) it would seem to me appropriate to reference both and then try to parse a valid statement from the synthesis of the two statements. The BBC may have overstated their case. The Guardian piece may not have gone far enough in refuting the validity of the BBC's position. In either event, only careful language will outline the reality. Nightmote (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So do you have a suggested wording for improving the article, or just an opinion? Either vote or suggest a different wording, I'm done with hearing ppl's opinions. --Nigelj (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Awkward for you that this is a collective project, then. You don't get to make decisions on what will be in or out. Re-read WP:Vote. The majority cannot force "consensus" on the minority. I won't re-visit this, and I will not allow you to make changes without reasonable discussion and consensus. Find a reliable source that refutes MN's entry or go away. Nightmote (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi - in the !voting sections below there are a number of proposals, including one that has no outstanding objections what-so-ever, and one that requires urgent attention (about unsourced info currently in the article that has been challenged.) Have you considered helping reach consensus? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, now Hipocrite, I reckon there's a *reason* you're calling this a !vote instead of a vote. When you roll that together with Nigel's insightful " ... I'm done with hearing ppl's opinions ... " I think that my principled stand makes more sense. Unsourced material? Out. Sourced material? In. And to Hell with wholesale edits and swap-outs. Nigel wants to make a change, he can do so same as the rest of us - one word at a time, with reliable sources and slowly-built consensus. I will oppose with great vigor any effort to railroad the peer-review process by presenting the editors with false "choices" that actually limit the opportunity for reasoned debate and careful word choice in this highly-contested article. Have I "considered helping reach consensus"? That's offensive, Hipocrite, - perhaps deliberately so - given the exchange we just had regarding the identification of relationships. I've demonstrated Good Faith. Are you willing to do the same, or are you just going to finger-point and complain about how much *you* have had to compromise? Nightmote (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

NM, I'm not getting your point here. The language that is gaining consensus keeps both the BBC critique and the guardian response which seems in line with your desired outcome as stated above. I'd like to hear your comments on the proposal. BTW, the whole compromise thing is a giant red herring. Consensus and compromise are two different things. The measure is not how far each side has come but how far each must go to get neutral language all can live with. JPatterson (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Longer version

The CRU files also included temperature reconstruction programs written in Fortran and IDL, programmer comments and a readme file. In a BBC Newsnight report, software engineer John Graham-Cumming found the code to be "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software" because it lacked clear documentation or an audit history. Graham-Cumming also reported finding a bug in the code's error handling that could result in data loss. Other investigations posted in various editorials and blogs have stated that the comments and readme files indicate that the temperature reconstructions hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase and question the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record.

Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU. When he challenged Newsnight on this, they responded that "Our expert's opinion is that this is climate change code" and declined to retract the story. He commented that on the same basis the quality of code he put together for students could be used to discredit other research code.

(Please add your vote here)

• Keep It is well sourced and everyone and his granny knows there was climate data in the foi.zip, are we meant to just ignore that? --mark nutley (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Object "everyone and their granny" is not sourcing. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Support this version JPatterson (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Request - could you please source "Other investigations posted in various editorials and blogs have stated that the comments and readme files indicate that the temperature reconstructions hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase and question the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record." by linking to a specific reliable source or sources that verifies all of the information therein? Hipocrite (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Claims that the BBC News isn't a reliable source are ridiculous. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep/Support--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Shorter version

The CRU files also included temperature data processing software written in Fortran and IDL as well as programmer comments and a readme file. Various sources, including a BBC Newsnight report, have found the code to be "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software" possibly including bugs and poor error handling.

Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU. When he challenged Newsnight on this, they responded that "Our expert's opinion is that this is climate change code" and declined to retract the story. He commented that on the same basis the quality of code he put together for students could be used to discredit other research code.

(Please add your vote here)

• Support --Nigelj (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Acceptable Hipocrite (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:OR. The source does not indicate that the software possibly contains bugs. The source indicates that it contains bugs.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Even shorter version

The CRU files also included temperature data processing software written in Fortran and IDL as well as programmer comments and a readme file. On BBC Newsnight, software engineer John Graham-Cumming said that the code lacked clear documentation and an audit history, and possibly included a bug and poor error handling. Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU.

(Please add your !vote here)

1. Optimal Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
2. I like this prose much more. It is better worded and by saying less avoids the speculation problems. Ignignot (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Support I prefer this too (tnx to H for writing it) --Nigelj (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Support - thanks for the considerationsOppose - If we're going to name Allen and provide his credentials, it is non-NPOV to not even mention that it was a noted computer scientist who reviewed the code for the BBC JPatterson (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   Accepted, and modifed. Your objection now adressed, is this ok? Hipocrite (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   Well, I'm not so sure now. Having pumped up the BBC report for JPat, the lack of detail in its rebuttal means that two-thirds is on the BBC with only a brief comment on HadCRUT below it. I'm thinking of moving my vote back up, to where we get the thing about undergraduates for balance. --Nigelj (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for the modification but it's perhaps a step too far flow-wise. The BBC video lists him as a "software engineer". I would think this should be sufficient. JPatterson (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   Taking you at your word, I just changed it as you suggest. I'm happier with it now, but I'm aware that chaging the text after people have voted is confusing. I'll strike my comment above now too. --Nigelj (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

5. Acceptable still has the "commercial software" quality thing in it, which imho utterly irrelevant. It is not commercial, and it is not written for distribution - but to be run by the programmer who made it, and knows its quirks and how to use it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   I agree. We should drop the commercial aspect and use his relevant critique, which is that the code is "poorly documented" "lacked clear documentation", "lacks an audit history" and contains at least one bug.JPatterson (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   Well, if people don't mind these incremental changes while we vote, then I'm happier with the quote replaced by those words from the long version instead. Personally I'd like to see something about Allen's undergraduate teaching example too, but when compromising for a consensual agreement, you can't have everything I guess. Is everyone OK with this so far? --Nigelj (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

6. It's a considerable improvement over the longer versions, and there is an argument for a placeholder until better and more informative sources emerge. The point of the undergraduate teaching example was that there was no indication of what the code was being used for, it should be mentioned concisely. Perhaps "and might be no more than a teaching example." Something on those lines. . . dave souza, talk 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"and might be no more than a teaching example." would seem to have as much evidential support as "was used to produce the final IPCC report", that is to say, none. Seems to me that speculation on either side is inappropriate. JPatterson (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There's something in that, but we're also stating "temperature data processing software" as though it was used for that purpose – perhaps "alleged temperature data processing software" would cover the point. . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I see your point -we do not want to leave the impression that for a fact the software was used in some "official" capacity. But as was made clear in the report, it was temperature data processing software, a description that speaks to the type of data that was the input to the program. Of course it says nothing at all about how the output was used. I think a clarification along the lines of "the purpose of these programs and their, effect if any, on the scientific conclusions reached by the CRU is unknown" is the best we could do, but this seems bordering on OR to me. Suggestions?JPatterson (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A note - I'll resolicit anyone who opines before any edit to the proposal before taking the proposal live. Hipocrite (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A quibile: I don't think he states that the code has "poor error handling". I think "a bug in its error handling" would be more accurate. JPatterson (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So when and were exactly is your A note - I'll resolicit anyone who opines before any edit to the proposal before taking the proposal live I see you made the change, yet i see no consensus for this change. Please revert like you said you would in your edit commentary thank you. --mark nutley (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't modify the proposal before taking it live. It had broad, if not unanimous acceptance and was a compromise between multiple parties.Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose as per WP:OR See above. It also excludes sourced information for no apparent reason.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

   I don't see a violation of WP:OR. The reason is that the information not included isn't interesting or relevent. Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Modified Even shorter version

Incorporating the changes discussed above

The CRU files also included temperature data processing software written in Fortran and IDL as well as programmer comments and a readme file. On BBC Newsnight, software engineer John Graham-Cumming said that the code lacked clear documentation and audit history, and found a bug in the error handling code. The purpose of the code and its effect, if any, on the scientific conclusions reached by the CRU is unknown. Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU.

(Please add your !vote here) JPatterson (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of subsection

(Please add your vote here)

1. Support until reliably sourced and agreed. . . dave souza, talk 12:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Support per Dave. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Preferred Hipocrite (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Preferred not enough reliable sources, and the whole commercial software thing is a red-herring. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I voted above to keep, should i also vote here? --mark nutley (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The voting method is pretty ridiculous, but as is, I voted at each place. I don't see how else it could work.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Opposed It needs rewording but the basic contention is reliably sourced. JPatterson (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose. That would be silly.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Interim step

"Other investigations posted in various editorials and blogs have stated that the comments and readme files indicate that the temperature reconstructions hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase and question the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record." references [16] and [17]. Assuming for the purpose of this section only that those sources are totally reliable, I see no evidence that there are "various editorials and blogs," no evidence of "hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase" and no "question the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record" in relation to the data files. Could someone point out where, exactly, using quotes, in those sources such information is gleaned? I further suggest that unless those sections are gleaned, we remove at the very least, this one sentence in the short term. Please don't reply with bolded "OBJECT," or whatever, rather just provide the requested sourcing. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it`s been in shedloads of blogs, but as they are not reliable sources should we link to them? --mark nutley (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You need a reliable source saying it's been in blogs. Provide one. Just finding lots of blogs and linking to them is WP:OR by WP:SYNTH, as it was the last time. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So would delingpole in the telegraph do the job? --mark nutley (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Provide a source and a quote from that source and it can be evaluated. Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wall street journal The whole affair has much of the blogosphere alight www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails The Examiner Mentions four blogs I`ll get more if needed but am busy at the moment. Seems i can`t post a link to the examiner, why not? i`m sure i have before --mark nutley (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you misunderstand what blogs are being attributed here - specifically, this section is about the code snippits, not the emails. We are looking for RS's saying blogs are saying the code snippits "hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase," not merely that blogs are talking about climategate. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, these mention bloggers looking into the code and what it did.

• CBS News Article linking in loads of blogs looking at the code not the e-mails.

  American ThinkerSame as above, links bloggers to looking at code.

  The AtlanticLinks bloggers to the code

(undent) Great, thanks. I ignored the second as not a reliable source, and the third, while possibly a reliable source, doesn't state anything about other bloggers. In fact, it merely references the first story. The first story dosen't seem to reference anything other than programmers looked at the code, and found some errors and didn't like some comments. You'll want to find something where bloggers and columnists found the code "hides and manipulate data to show a temperature increase." Hipocrite (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail row unit 'broke data law'

E-mail row unit 'broke data law' A university unit involved in a row over stolen e-mails on climate research breached rules by withholding data, the Information Commissioner's Office says. Off2riorob (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember you can just add this content to the article yourself. Posting RS links here first introduces a middleman unnecessarily, as far as I can tell. I've just added it myself, though, so don't worry about it. --Heyitspeter (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about that middle man thing but thanks, I have added things to climate change articles a couple of times and just got reverted, so I don't bother now, I just posted it to the talkpage as it was breaking news and that it could well be worthwhile content.Off2riorob (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Thanks, good to have reliable sources appearing on this. I've added some detail based on the Guardian's story which was pretty informative. The ICO have yet to make the press release available on their website, don't think a FOI request will be needed to get it from them. Added: don't know if Heyitspeter's addition is superfluous, others can review. Talking first is often a good idea, well done. . . dave souza, talk 07:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, please, where is it written that the Dailymail is not a RS? Why was my earlier question in that regard removed? Tom Perkins 07:53, 30 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.81.136 (talk)

Cool, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think in the light of the article probation, discussing significant changes here in advance' is definitely a good idea. --Nigelj (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Be bold. Make appropriate edits; improvements to an article do not require anyone's prior approval. On the other hand, be smart: make sure edits are well-sourced, word them neutrally, and if you expect others might object (a safe bet in a controversial subject area), post your rationale for the edit to the talk page at the same time, and invite others to adjust your addition of offer alternatives rather than simply reverting your change. It makes it easier to identify and address who is editing constructively if there is conflict. --DGaw (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If I anticipate an addition is likely going to be controversial or contentious, I always propose the addition on the talk page first. Hair-trigger reversions are common here, and boldness is usually interpreted as being inflammatory. Sad, but true. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

True enough, sadly. --DGaw (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of adding one RS-backed sentence. If editors have to worry about that something's going wrong. --Heyitspeter (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a very important finding (WP:WEIGHT) in my view. It should have more weight than CRU's response for instance. I am not sure that the current reading gives it this weight as finding it in the current revision is difficult (I searched for breached). It also affects the timeline, and the response section. How do we do that without making this thing more verbose than it already is?Atandb (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's probably important. So little reporting has been done on this that we are having to look into the crystal ball a wee bit and indulge in a little recentism. After a few days, the level of coverage will become clearer and it will be much easier to determine the appropriate level of weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow...so the criminals are going to get off on a legal technicality. According to this source[18], the ICO wants the law changed so that complaints made more than six months after a breach of the act can still result in prosecutions. Should this be added to the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone already included this in the timeline.Atandb (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Criminals", eh? Careful now - weren't you claiming to be a neutral party in this issue? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm currently finding one of the warring factions to be more annoying than the other. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Annoyance" does not give one license for an astonishingly egregious violation of Wikipedia's policy on the treatment of living persons. You've been around long enough to know better. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's actually some substance to your accusation, then bring it before the WP:BLPN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering BLP, how will "wrongdoing" be handled?

As I understand it, the Freedom of Information Act was "breached". So wrongdoing is no longer "alleged" (per the lede), it has been (in this instance) identified. That having been said, certainly there was no court conviction (statute of limitations) and I'm not sure whether any names were named. How can this be handled neutrally yet decisively without violating an individual's right to freedom from presumed guilt? Nobody has been "convicted" of anything, and quite possibly nobody ever will be. As the story develops, there will be other findings. Some will deal with the CRU as a monolithic institution, some with day-to-day procedures, and some with individual staff members. How will this article address non-judicial findings? Nightmote (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a case by case basis is appropriate. In this instance, the ICO simply said that they had found the FOIA to have been breached, so we can say that they said that. If they later put together a case demonstrating how they want to change FOIA requests to avoid the situation in the future, we can attribute that as well. Ignignot (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit rich trying to say that it must be handled neutrally and you can't violate an individual's right about one person, when you in this article are straight outright saying another has broken the law even though they may have the law on their side. Compare: a) The condemnating treatment of the leaker in this article. to the "oh my god can't say anything nasty about the nice scientists how were economical with the decline."79.71.175.138 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not rich at all. The FOIA was breached, but the statute of limitations was exeeded so no prosecution will take place. Nobody was convicted of anything in a court of law, there was no discovery process, no prosecution, no defense. That distinction is important, and the article should be careful to note it explicitly in this instance and in future occurrences. Nightmote (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet again you completely fail to see the point. The climategate gang broke the law, so the leaker of the emails did not break the law because they are protected under whistleblower legislation. However the article will continue to say the complete opposite of the truth! 79.71.175.138 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is original research. We won't know that no crime was committed until the police say so. Ignignot (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That is utter utter utter hypocrisy. As onus is to prove crime particularly when we are talking about the individual who released the data. But you somehow have turned that round and say wikipedia has to say this individual has committed a crime until we have concrete proof they didn't.79.71.175.138 (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(insert) Although I see your point, I find it to be flawed. The CRU professors may have committed crimes, but because of a procedural point (statute of limitations) they will never be charged and will never have a legal public forum where they can defend their actions. Thus the burden of proving that a crime was committed by these individuals will never be taken up. The individual who removed the files was by definition in violation of the law; it remains to be seen whether that individual was a "whistleblower" or not, but that definition has been met. I'm sympathetic to your position, I assure you, but it would be presumptuous to identify that person as a "whistleblower" until more is known. In this instance some pigs are, in fact, more equal than others. Nightmote (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We can add a sentence to the lede that says something to the effect that the allegations of violating the FOIA have been confirmed by the The Information Commissioner's office. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

KISS - Keep it simple Shirley. The simplest explanation is always the best one to assume. Even if you were in the organisation it would be pretty difficult to hack into all the various email storage locations. Anyone outside would need to have some kind of knowledge of the systems inside even to know where the doorway was to try and access the system without ever considering guessing the keep - a username AND a password. The effort would be huge and require considerable brute force which should have been obvious and would have e.g. alerted people to the IP address and quickly located the hacker. The fact there is no such evidence clearly points to an inside job. The most likely scenarios are these:

• That the information was an FOI request which someone involved with the FOI felt should be released (almost no technical skills required)
• That this information was left on a laptop or other device which was lost, stolen, left at home and without the employees knowledge someone they knew took it off.
• The information was prepared for an FOI, but someone in the IT department or some other high level user with access released it.
• That someone in the IT department obtained usernames, passwords and details of where to look for the FOI information gave this to someone outside
• That someone inside in IT, gathered together loads of emails, sent this to someone outside who then made it look like an FOI request and then released
• Last and very least that someone with no inside knowledge gained access and then trawled all the various data stores, gathered together the various information deleted all those that wouldn't have been part of an FOI, and then released it.Isonomia (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

John Christy's Climategate thoughts

Interesting new interview of John Christy at IEEE Spectrum [19] here: " What's disturbing in the [CRU e-]mail is the resistance to share fundamental data with the outside community. That raised a lot of suspicions and red flags, and now we see that those suspicions were well justified." --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good bit of information to add to the reactions section. We have a paucity of reactions from skeptics at the moment which needs to be rectified. I say add it. JettaMann (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to weigh in here. I believe the quote from John Christy should absolutely be used. As it says at the top of the page, this article has serious problems with NPOV. It needs more comments from those who align with mainstream opinion on climate-gate. No doubt the "RC and friends" crowd (which currently holds the majority of editors) will block it, arguing that Christy represents "fringe" viewpoints, is not "notable", etc. And they may have a point if the quote was related to the science, since, with the science, they do have "peer reviewed" articles on thier side. (which I suspect is a result, at least in part, to the type of behavior revealed by the leaked emails.) However, climate-gate is not a forum for peer-reviewed articles, it's about a scandal. And I believe the mainstream view is that several of the email authors are guilty of at least some misconduct / unethical behavior, regardless of whether they believe in the science. Right now, the article is very misleading because it gives the false impression that experts think nothing is wrong with the emailers behavior. What's worse is that half the quotes are from the authors of the emails themselves, yet they are not presented that way.Sirwells (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of neutrality Christy's quote should be balanced by the fact that CRU never had ownership of the original data to begin with, and that the data sets were available to other researchers from their original sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points, to be dealt with carefully. Christy is accurately described in the article as holding a minority view, disputing the expert consensus, which should be shown as such in accordance with WP:NPOV. . . . dave souza, talk 19:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A "Who's Who" of the "Reactions to the Incident Section"

I'd like to present a little "who's who" of the "Reactions to the Incident Section". The follow individuals are quoted, with virtually no indication that they may have a direct interest in covering up any wrong-doing with the behavior of those who wrote the emails:

Michael Mann – climate-gate email author currently under investigation by Penn State, obvious conflict of interest issues when quoted in connection with the climate-gate emails.

Phil Jones – another climate-gate email author who stepped down as head of CRU while climate gate is being investigated, again, obvious conflict of interest issues when quoted in connection with the climate-gate emails.

Eric Steig – Real Climate contributor and climate-gate email author.

Richard Somerville – Yet another climate-gate email author.

Kevin Trenberth – Yet another climate-gate email, some of which contain conspiratorial-type discussions with Michael Mann.

Tom Wigley – And yet another climate-gate email author at the center of the controversy.

John Hirst – A weatherman (not a climatologist), blasted for receiving a bonus after predicting mild winters in UK. Famous for incorrectly predicting years of “hottest weather on record” which have not come true. Works with CRU scientists.

Julia Slingo – Associate of John Hirst.

Patrick Michaels – No complaints there

James Hansen – Another climate-gate email author, now under attack for creating misleading temperature records.

Hons von Storch – Finally, here’s one with a non-biased view. Had no part in the climate-gate emails.

Gavin Schmidt – Climate-gate author, Real Climate contributor

There's more, but you get the idea....

My point for this is I think this is one of the main problems with NPOV of the article and I think it needs to be fixed. Can anyone explain to me how the above situation presents a non-biased view? Sirwells (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

BRAVO! Well-caught! Any quotes from involved persons must be so identified, obviously, because of the inherant COI issues. "So-and-so, mentioned by name in the emails ...." or "So-and-so, author of several of the emails ..." Goes straight to motivation. I say, beautiful bit of work there. Nightmote (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You failed to note that both Michaels and von Storch were mentioned several times in the emails. Given that they both were mentioned in not altogether flattering ways, it stretches credulity that their reactions could be considered "non biased." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that von Storch actually is an "email author"... 1155346370.txt --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of this thread? Of course we quote those directly involved with the e-mails, since their reactions are extremely relevant. Is Sirwells saying we shouldn't? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sirwells can speak for himself. Nightmote's basic question is reasonable: would it be sensible to try to indicate such potential conflicts in this section? It may prove difficult, as suggested above, but the question should not simply be dismissed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a conflict of interest to have sent an email to someone who works at the CRU. Perhaps someone could explain that to me? Hipocrite (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The only people with conflicts of interest are Mann and Jones, since their conduct is under investigation. That is already clear in the article. Ignignot (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

@hipocrite and @ignignot - The relationships ought to be clearly stated; it goes both to motive and expertise. To make a ridiculous example, "John Smith said that Robert Jones was a man of stirling reputation and unparalleled knowledge" is not the same as saying, "John Smith, who shares a desk with Robert Jones at XYZ Corp., said ... " One can draw one's own conclusions about the significance (if any) of the relationship, but the relationship can reasonably be considered a salient fact and a possible Conflict of Interest. Nightmote (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh sure, if it was there. However, the only evidence presented above is that the people have, in the past, emailed someone who worked for the CRU and that email was stolen and published. That's not a COI. Hipocrite (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what this thread is arguing is that we should have more comment from people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. People who don't know what the emails were actually about, who don't have any connection with climate change science, and who never had any contact with a real climate change scientist. --Nigelj (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) For the sake of discussion, let's say that no COI exists. Wouldn't the fact that the commentator is involved in the data breach, even peripherally, be worthy of mention? Not as a seperate section, but as a parenthetical descriptor? "Doctor So-and-So (who originated 11 of the emails) said ... " "Professor Such-and-Such (an employee at CRU) noted that ... " Perhaps I'm being dense, but their relationship to the event seems salient to me. Not damning in any way, you understand, just part of the larger picture. Helping to define the commentator's relationship to the community, as it were. Nightmote (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be undue weight, since the relevance is not established, and would run into original research and verifiability problems (what would be your source?). It would introduce a POV element of innuendo, which comes through very clearly in Sirwells' comments ("blasted for receiving a bonus", "conspiratorial-type discussions" and other nonsense). Sirwells appears to be angling for a "guilt by association" approach, which would be completely inappropriate and a blatant violation of NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris, there would be no need to add any judgemental terms to a parenthetical descriptor. If someone works at CRU, wrote an email, or received an email, that relationship is pertinent. No need to draw any conclusions on the nature of that relationship (i.e. "former employee" not "disgruntled employee"). Nightmote (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly you'll have reliable sources (IE - not the emails themselves) for anything you want to put in the article, right? Hipocrite (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no intention of adding a thing. My position is strictly theoretical, and is as follows: I admired the footwork of Sirwells, and believe that a valid point was raised. If a reliable source identifies a commentator as having an existential relationship to the event, that relationship is a pertinent piece of information, should be included, and in no event should a reliably-sourced pertinent truth be reverted unless a valid BLP concern exists. Nightmote (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

We're all good then - nothing about supposed conflicts of interest gets mentioned unless a reliable source thinks it's notable. Good to go. I'd further note that Sirwells did miss the fact that Hons von Storch is a climate-gate email author. Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're in accord, yet. My position is that a list of people is uncalled for, but that a brief reliably-sourced parenthetical description of relationship would be appropriate. Any conclusions regarding Conflict of Interest would be inappropriate unless reliably sourced. OK? Nightmote (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm loathe to say that's ok. Including people's current employer and job is certainly ok, but if we're going to be digging around to figure out some old relation, that's not ok, unless done by a reliable source in relation to this event. For instance, if one of the people above attended someone's 30th birthday party, it would not be appropriate to find an entry in the social register for that party and use that as a source to include (attended John Smith's 30th birthday party) as opposed to (Climatologist at Harvard University). Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost there. Direct social relationships pertinent? So 30th birthday party-out, friends since 2nd grade-in? Nightmote (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Only if mentioned in direct relationship to this - again, finding a social register item on their lifelong frendship does not make it notable for this article. Hipocrite (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, then, from my point of view. Nightmote (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution

I suggest we create a subsection titled "E-mail Authors." That or intersperse them in the actual e-mail sections.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we should not engage in prohibited research. Listing all of the email authors also adds nothing to the article. Hipocrite (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the hacker might have been an insider?

For those that don't know me, up until now, I’ve agreed with the position that Robert Graham’s quote about the hacker being an insider should be excluded from the article. However, I read the entire article from top to bottom and given all the other people who are quoted in the article, Graham’s opinion is about as notable as anyone else’s on the topic. You have to read the article from top to bottom to understand what I mean. At this point, I’m starting to think that given the context of the entire article as a whole, a sentence or two from Graham would not violate WP:UNDUE.

For those that don’t know the background regarding this issue, we have at least three reliable sources: ComputerWorld[20], Reuters[21] and PC World[22] which which quote an established expert, Robert Graham, speaking within his area of expertise (network security) that it was probably an insider. Robert Graham is a notable expert who's opinion has been cited by numerous reliable sources for his expertise on network security including BBC News[23], CNET[24], MSNBC[25], eWeek[26], InfoWorld[27], USA Today[28] and many others. Robert Graham is a published author whose work in the relevant field (network security) has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[29] Elsevier is a respected publishing house. According to our article on Elsevier, they publish many peer-reviewed, academic journals including The Lancet and Cell.

Given the above information, does anyone seriously doubt adding it to the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as having any value, it's only speculation and without clear detail I don't see it has value, the BBC refereed to it as a theft today and that they were stolen and not hacked. Off2riorob (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pure speculation and Robert Graham has no "inside knowledge" of this incident whatsoever. No. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously leaked or left on an open server, no hacker could have gotten all that stuff. But as chris says, this is speculation and i don`t think it is productive to speculate or to have this section here which will no doubt lead to arguing, best to just collapse it. mark nutley (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously leaked by an insider or hacked by an insider, but I'm not yet aware of any convincing sources which are not just speculation (I am keeping an eye out). Graham's stuff might perhaps belong in the article on hacking or similar? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume that Norwich Evening News [30] is a reliable source? "Police including a team from Scotland yard were called in to investigate amid speculation that the leaks were part of a smear campaign by climate change sceptics to discredit the UEA in the run up the Copenhagen summit last year. Other theories were that the leaks were the work of a disgruntled insider angry at the way the university was handling FOI requests." This may not be enough to add to the article per WP:UNDUE yet, but if enough sources report this as an alternate theory so should we. Oren0 (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is very much my position. I think the number and quality of mentions of alternative theories is getting close to being enough to justify inclusion, but it's not quite there yet. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no "obviously" about it. The anti-science bloggers who are promoting this "theory" so energetically are doing so on the basis of pure unsourced speculation. My understanding is that the server was breached at least twice and a very large quantity of data was taken - far more than was ultimately released by the hacker. The "foi.zip" file never existed on the server in the first place. There is no need for us to include speculation when the facts are due to come out in a few weeks' time anyway, when Sir Muir Russell reports. I might add that the bloggers promoting this theory persistently ignore the initial hack of the RealClimate server and the attempt to use Climate Audit as the conduit to promote the files with no pretence that it had anything to do with FOI. It seems fairly apparent that the hack was carried out by a Climate Audit reader who wanted to "assist" Mcintyre with his campaign against the CRU. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion, just as my bits above are my opinion. Both are essentially speculation. The point I am making is that there are editors out there who firmly believe it was an inside job who nevertheless remain very cautious about including this in the article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

KISS - Keep it simple Shirley. The simplest explanation is always the best one to assume. Even if you were in the organisation it would be pretty difficult to hack into all the various email storage locations. Anyone outside would need to have some kind of knowledge of the systems inside even to know where the doorway was to try and access the system without ever considering guessing the key - a username AND a password. The effort would be huge and require considerable brute force which should have been obvious and would have e.g. alerted people to the IP address and quickly located the hacker. The fact there is no such evidence clearly points to an inside job. The most likely scenarios are these:

• That the information was an FOI request which someone involved with the FOI felt should be released (almost no technical skills required)
• That this information was left on a laptop or other device which was lost, stolen, left at home and without the employees knowledge someone they knew took it off.
• The information was prepared for an FOI, but someone in the IT department or some other high level user with access released it.
• That someone in the IT department obtained usernames, passwords and details of where to look for the FOI information gave this to someone outside
• That someone inside in IT, gathered together loads of emails, sent this to someone outside who then made it look like an FOI request and then released
• Last and very least that someone with no inside knowledge gained access and then trawled all the various data stores, gathered together the various information deleted all those that wouldn't have been part of an FOI, and then released it.

Personally I'd say all right for a very brief mention from the Reuters report where he says it was either an insider or someone who had followed the climate change debates. But, please, no more second-guessing the police, or it becomes talk page trolling. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats not KISS, you are inventing a scenario that requires your conclusion. Simpler solution: The mails (maildirs or unix mailboxen) and documents where all on the same server, in a directory. They all belong to the user Phil Jones (and research-team), and could have been snatched with a tar pipe to sendmail or ssh. Doesn't need access to more than one machine, and doesn't even need administrative access. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC) [lesson: never read stuff when you are tired, and caffeine deprived --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)]

@ChrisO Please stop suggesting that people who have questions regarding the validity of the AGW hypothesis are in some way "anti-science". It is inflammatory and (at least in my case) completely untrue. Similarly, there are those who have repeatedly linked the "Climategate" term with AGW skeptics - there's plenty of overlap, but there are plenty who don't fit that mold, either. Use your language more carefully to help build consensus, instead of trying to dismiss those who disagree with you as outside looking in. In this instance I agree that the term "hacker" "whistleblower" is pure speculation, but there was no need to toss in the extra nastiness. Nightmote (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Now UEA says: "the issues surrounding what has become known as ‘Climategate’"

Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of UEA, said in a statement:

“Sir Muir Russell is currently conducting an Independent Review of the issues surrounding what has become known as ‘Climategate’ and we very deliberately made our handling of FOI requests part of the terms of reference. I look forward to receiving his report and as I have said before it will be published and I will act accordingly if he finds there is indeed substance in these allegations.”

Note:

1. No mention of "hacker"
2. Clear and unambigous description that climategate relates to the contents of the emails.

Everyone in the world is calling this incidence "climategate" except the POV pushers in wikipedia.88.109.13.105 (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Factually inaccurate, Mr Anonymous IP hopper from Milton Keynes. The article refers to the controversy as "Climategate" in the very first paragraph, and further describes how it acquired that name in a later section. Please read the article before posting your misrepresentations in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Everybody except some wikipedians calls it climategate. See http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/climategate+the+email+trail/3519452 for yet another example. Ann arbor street (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is another example:

"Scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled...." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html

So at this point Climategate has grown beyond the original email incident and more generally describes profound scientific misconduct by "climatologists." It is quite obvious that this article and others on "global warming" are serious violations of WIkipedia's POV rules and being controlled by a small cabal with overt conflict of interest. Something very similar occurs on 9/11 related topics at Wikipedia. Clearly, Wikipedia is a tool of propaganda . 24.11.186.64 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of these examples put quotes around "Climategate" to indicate it is not their language. But I can see from your reference to 9/11, "cabal" and "propaganda" that I'm wasting my time talking to you. Wanna see my birth certificate? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*2 Re "profound scientific misconduct" Where? By the way, WP:TINC, and invoking 9/11 doesn't help the credibility of your arguments. Verbal chat 18:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So you think the murder of some 3000 Americans and the US Constitution are both jokes? Is that your point? 24.11.186.64 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be over... Verbal chat 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you explain to us how the EPA's lies about post-9/11 air quality being safe, exposure to which is now killing thousands of 9/11 first-responders, were not really lies? 24.11.186.64 (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the article? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

'Code and documentation' section

The 'Code and documentation' section is still pants, and it needs fixing. After endless discussion above, and some (slo-mo, 1RR) edit warring, there are currently four concrete options under consideration at #Proposals above. Please either show your support for one of those, or if you really think it will help, propose a fifth. It must get agreed one way or another. (Of course, this is only a straw poll and we are not a WP:DEMOCRACY) --Nigelj (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. Keep 'em coming - vote early and vote often! Things are changing up there and a consensus may be forming. --Nigelj (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Law was broken

Scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled. Can someone please incorporate this into the article? Thanks. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate, not a reliable source, and the issue is already covered in the article. Thanks for raising this, always worth checking. . dave souza, talk 19:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

How long a time will pass without a retraction or a call for a retraction before objections to this fact being included are dropped? Where is the dailymail listed as an unreliable source? Tom Perkins 19:37, 29 January 2010 (EST)

I just read 2 more news articles stating the the CRU climate scietist not only violated the spirit of free exchange of ideas but prevented their data from being released.

"The office of Britain's Information Commissioner announced that the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia -- the subject of the "Climategate" story about the leaked emails -- did in fact break Britain's Freedom of Information laws.

In a related story (BBC), the UK government's chief scientist, John Beddington, says the evidence for global warming remains sound, but calls for more openness in handling the data."

http://www.xxxexaminerxxxx.com/x-8765-Manchester-Science-Examiner~y2010m1d29-Climategate-Freedom-of-Information-violations remove the xxx's to get link. wiki is blocking it.

This wiki article is clearly a major source of disinformation when it won't include this important conclusion from the UK information commission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

See also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8484385.stm--64.244.99.100 (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's in the article, don't you know to check? Also, contrary to the spirit of freedom of information, the office of Britain's Information Commissioner has so far failed to make the text of the press release available on its website. Odd. . . dave souza, talk 22:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the "related story" wasn't covered, so I've added it. Always glad to oblige. . . dave souza, talk 23:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It was not covered the LAW was broken category, it is vaguely referred to in" Jones email of 2008" Dave Souza persistence on this issue and the fact that it is not included in the LAW is BROKEN category is yet another flagrant misinformation campaign by wiki editor corruption of knowledge... just like at the Hadley CRU. Birds of a feather flock together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Now that the first paragraph has been re-worked (thanks again SCjessey et. al.) How about we tackle the second.

Extracts from the e-mails have been publicised and allegations have been made that they indicate misconduct by leading climate scientists such as withholding scientific information, interfering with the peer-review process of scientific papers, deleting information to prevent disclosure under the United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act, and selecting data to support the case for global warming. The University of East Anglia and climate scientists have described these interpretations as incorrect and misleading, with the extracts being taken out of context in what has been described as a smear campaign. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change head Rajendra Pachauri are among those who have suggested that the incident was intended to undermine the then imminent December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit. Though the vast majority of climate data have always been freely available, the incident has prompted general discussion about increasing the openness of scientific data. Scientists, scientific organisations, and government officials have stated that the incident does not affect the overall scientific case for climate change. Allegations that UEA violated the Freedom of Information Act were confirmed by the Information Commissioner's Office but the people involved cannot be prosecuted because the complaint was made too late.

My problem with it is its length, composition and flow. I do not see any POV issues here. YMMV. Here's a target to shoot at.

Published excerpts from the e-mails gave rise to allegations that some leading climate scientists withheld scientific information, impeded the publication of opposition papers in the scientific journals, deleted information to prevent disclosure under the United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act (an allegation later confirmed by the Information Commissioner's Office), and selected data to bolster their theories. The University of East Anglia and many climate scientists strongly denied these allegations as incorrect and misleading and said that the e-mails in their proper context show nothing untoward. The timing of the publication caused some officials to brand the unauthorized publication as a smear campaign designed to derail consensus at the December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit, then just weeks away. While most climate experts who expressed a view opined that nothing in the released documents undermined the science behind the prevailing theory of global warming, some scientists and opinion journalist expressed concerns about the scientific process and transparency practiced at the CRU and other climate centers.

The University of East Anglia said the data was taken illegally and the police conducted a criminal investigation of the server breach as well as subsequent personal threats made against some of the scientists mentioned in the e-mails.

JPatterson (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The added bit about the FOI opinion was incorrect, so I've changed it to "The Information Commissioner's Office stated the opinion that in one instance the UEA had not dealt properly with requests under the Freedom of Information Act, but as sanctions have to be imposed within six months of the offence it was too late to impose sanctions."

In the proposed paragraph, "(an allegation later confirmed by the Information Commissioner's Office)" is wrong as all they've said is that in that one case the emails showed that FOI request wasn't dealt with properly, and as far as I've seen did not state that any information was deleted. No immediate idea of how to fix it, and gotta go now. . . dave souza, talk 23:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What's your source for it only being one case? The three sources cited by the article says "requests". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Smith's statement refers to an FOI request from a retired engineer and climate sceptic in Northampton called David Holland. The CRU had been bombarded with similar requests for data, and the hacked emails between scientists suggest they were extremely frustrated with having to deal with them." The Guardian. When the ICO release their press release we'll be able to check that out. . . dave souza, talk 23:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that necessarily means there was only one request. Smith also states "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." Do you have a reliable source that explicitly states there was one and only one violation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BBC News[31] reports that "the requests were made by a climate change sceptic in the 2007-2008 period". I doubt a single request happened over a two year time frame. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The UPI is reporting as "The University of East Anglia violated Britain's Freedom of Information Act by refusing to fulfill requests for data supporting claims by university scientists that human-made emissions were causing global warming, Britain's Information Commissioner's Office said." JPatterson (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources specifically refer to one case, that of Mr Holland who appears to have made two or more requests. From memory, he requested data and programs, then requested emails over a period to see if they supported his idea that there had been deliberate fiddling of the IPPC reports. Sure I've seen that somewhere. That is quite distinct from the ICO stating an opinion that all the other accusations were true, and we have to be careful to avoid exaggerating the official ICO opinion. The text of their press release would help, but regrettably they still haven't made it available at their website though they've put up a few from the 28th, the latest being "28 Jan 10 - ICO to help keep Vale of Glamorgan children safe online". . . dave souza, talk 07:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the wording from "With reference to a FOI request made by David Holland" to "With reference to FOI requests made by David Holland" since as agreed here, he made multiple requests. And the very quote in the next sentence of that paragraph says "reveal that Mr Holland's requests"...

Incidentally, while I understand why the ICO finding is significant, is it really necessary to mention it in the "Timeline" section, in the "E-mails" section and in the "Jones e-mail of May 2008" section? In other words, 3 times not counting it also being mentioned in the summary/intro (which obviously will repeat what is in the article)

Nil Einne (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the change to plural, a very useful correction. The situation arose because three editors more or less simultaneously thought of adding it, in three different places. As I've suggested previously, the latter two could appropriately be merged – a brief mention in the timeline seems appropriate. Any other views on the best location for this? . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again

In case anyone's wondering, the reason why we're suddenly getting another influx of ranting newbies and IPs is because this article is being targeted (yet again) by anti-science blogs. Hopefully it will pass in a few days when they get bored and move on to the next manufactured outrage. In the meantime, please notify the newbies with the template in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Notification of probation. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Good. We need more POV-pushing anti-AGW editors to balance out the POV-pushing pro-AGW editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have been overlooked in the article probation notifications. Now fixed. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to think that's because everyone loves my edits. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that might be an over-optimistic assumption... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I might add that your claim about "POV-pushing pro-AGW editors" is rather nonsensical. Presumably you feel we also have "POV-pushing pro-evolution editors" and "POV-pushing pro-round earth editors". In each case, and this case as well, what we have is a scientific theory which is supported by the overwhelming majority of scientists in the relevant field(s) and is opposed by a small-to-tiny minority of scientists plus a segment of the general population that rejects the science because of political or religious beliefs. Wikipedia is "pro-AGW" for the same reason that it's "pro-evolution" or "pro-round earth" - because those are the overwhelming-majority scientific viewpoints. The viewpoints of non-scientists, while interesting up to a point, are far less relevant. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Two points ChrisO. 1) Shouldn't even a small-to-tiny minority of scientists be heard on Wikipedia; or at the very least not suppressed? 2) Those who reject the science for political or religious beliefs: what are specifically those political and those religious beliefs. I mean, are those who are to the left of center pro AGW while those who are to the right of center con AGW? Are Muslims pro AGW while Hindus are con AGW? Just asking. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure I've been overlooked as well. But I am quite aware :D Feel free to template me also though. Arkon (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)To the best of my knowledge, there is no equivalent in the evolution or creationism topic spaces. They explain creationism and then debunk it. Here, we have refusal to even admit the fringe theory exists even in articles about the fringe theory. Take a look at our Intelligent design article which is a featured article. It has entire sections - indeed entire sub-articles - devoted to key concepts of ID such as irreducible complexity. They don't shy away from explaining what the fringe theory is. Neither should we.

As someone who's spent the majority of his Wikipedia career in debunking fringe theories, I can say that the best way to handle them is to address them head-on. People are naturally curious and want to know what the fuss is about. Pretending that they don't exist or refusing to explain them in sufficient detail gives the readers the false impression that the fringe theories might be right. Our article on Piltdown man plainly explains that is was hoax. In no way does this isolated incident invalidate the science of evolution. Likewise, the potential misconduct of 3 or 4 climatologists does not invalidate the science of AGW. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

But this article is not about anthropogenic global warming, so your entire comment is irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it may be irrelevant to this thread topic, which is to alert people that this article is receiving yet more outside attention. But it is helpful for the reader that the article references the background against which the incident occurred. Whatever the scientists did wrong - suppressing seemingly contrary evidence, playing politics, being rude (or whatever it is) - probably happens all the time in other fields. It only became a scandal because of the hacking incident, the promotion of the controversy by activist journalists, and the reception among climate skeptics, all of which would not have happened but for the prevalence of unscientific beliefs about global warming. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

We have other articles to talk about this. And I don't agree with your assertion that this was a "scandal". It was a mild controversy at best, and that is well supported by most reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's relevant to this article because the e-mails and code has been seized upon by AGW opponents as evidence that AGW is wrong. We should explain that and debunk where appropriate. Ironically, the defensive tone of the article does a disservice to the science of AGW by making it appear as if the AGW opponents might be right. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. By giving room to the allegations and subsequent debunking you are giving a voice to the fringe. If you adopt that strategy, pretty soon many Wikipedia articles on science, religion and politics will be stuffed full of waste-of-time claim/rebuttal sections for things not relevant to the mainstream of society. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this deserves to be mentioned in the main AGW article, but in articles about the fringe theory, we should explain what it is. The best way to fight ignorance is by exposing it, not by pretending it doesn't exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No. This is not ignorance we are talking about here. Ignorance can be fought with education. This is actual denial - blind faith that the scientific facts are either wrong, or misinterpreted, despite an overwhelming consensus from scientists. The way to fight deniers is to ignore them and not give them a platform. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a fight, it is an encyclopaedia. Tell me again what one of those is for? mark nutley (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are addressing the wrong editor. It was A Quest For Knowledge who said "The best way to fight ignorance is by exposing it," and I was simply responding to that statement using the same term. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Comment - with the accept that this can be removed or collapsed, since it *is* a meta-discussion outside of the topic of the article) Yes, of course it should be done so in accordance with secondary reliable sources, in articles about "the" fringe "theory". The trouble is there isn't a single fringe view... There are multiple mutually exclusive fringe views. When we are talking not so fringe views, then it is Iris hypothesis or Cosmoclimatology. To the extent possible and within WP:WEIGHT some of it is at Global warming controversy (but here it is rather a top-view, where it is small minority posititions mostly).

The main trouble is that there isn't a coherent fringe or minority view on the scientific side of global warming, and what most people think is one, is mainly blog/opinion pieces that take the "i know better than scientists" view, by pointing out something that looks simple and obvious on the surface, but has relatively complex scientific explanations. ("CO2 always followed temperatures in the past" etc). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"The way to fight deniers is to ignore them and not give them a platform." Your opinion is at odds with the rest of the community, Scjessey. Much of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE would need to be rewritten if that were true. Why don't you nominate Intelligent design for deletion and see how far it goes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because you say it "is at odds" does not make it so, and clearly your interpretation of WP:FRINGE is flawed. Perhaps one could say you have a fringe view of WP:FRINGE! I have no idea why you keep referring to the Intelligent design article. I would no more nominate it for deletion than nominate Creationism (which is directly related, although filled with much the same nonsense). That's because despite being obviously wrong, intelligent design is not a fringe concept. I think you are being deliberately provocative, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What specifically do you think is flawed about my understanding of WP:FRINGE? I bring up intelligent design as an example of how to deal with fringe theories. AFAIK it's our only article about a fringe theory that has achieved feature article status. Please don't question my motives. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent design is not "an example of how to deal with fringe theories." So, specifically I think the flaw in your understanding of WP:FRINGE can be derived from you not understanding what "fringe" means. Like I said, although ID is obviously wrong, it cannot be called a fringe theory because it has substantial support and orders of magnitude more mainstream media coverage when compared to those who deny AGW. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually not. (ie. much of NPOV and FRINGE would need to be rewritten). While ID is fringe "science", it is certainly not a fringe movement. As science it is dismissable, as a movement it isn't. Thats why it doesn't merit inclusion on evolution (science), but does merit an article (movement). As i stated above, global warming "scepticism" (of the kind we are talking about here), doesn't have such a "movement" or coherent focus, but where it does have such, it should be mentioned (and is). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

<ec> ID is indeed a fringe view, and is carefully shown as such with full reference to majority views. In my understanding, we can devote articles to fringe views provided the majority view is shown in these articles, and they show majority view expert opinions on the fringe views. What we can't do is present fringe or minority views as The Truth without clearly showing how they have been received by majority scientific opinion. As Kim rightly says, there is a range of minority views, which denialists tend to lump together to create a false dichotomy between the scientific consensus and the denialist position that the science should be rejected. This blog by John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas State Climatologist; Professor of Meteorology, gives a thoughtful view of the reception of the emails. . . dave souza, talk 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(ECx2 In reply to Scjessy) I would have to disagree with that. I don't know when's the last time I've seen any article in the MSM that in any way supported ID or questioned evolution. At most, there's occasionally articles mentioning silly things IDers and creationists are doing. And there's like 2? biologists who are known for actively support ID. AFAIK both of them always supported ID, in fact they got their PhDs partially to give them legitimacy. And most people ignore them because, well I can't say because it would violate BLP. However I see articles all the time which question various aspects of AGW. There's probably at least 15 climate scientists I can think off-hand who are known for questioning various aspects of AGW. And they at least get some respect from the media (some may say get too much respect) perhaps because many of them were resonably respected scientists before they started to question various aspects of AGW. Also in NZ for example, as I expect in a number of countries, for a mainstream politician to in some way suggest they support ID or express scepticism of evolution is likely to be political suicide. However several politicans have express scepticism of AGW and they're doing fine. Heck as mentioned in John Key as recently as 2005, our now PM expressed scepticism. I'm pretty sure polling will show similar trends. (From a quick search, I've seen figures that show 75% in NZ believe evolution is true [32], yet this perhaps fairly poorly worded poll [33] suggests nearly half doubt AGW. And before you laught at NZ, I strongly expect similar results in many European countries and probably Canada too.) None of this means they are any more right, but the idea intelligent design has "has substantial support and orders of magnitude more mainstream media coverage" is IMHO clearly false. At least outside the US. Americans seem to really like ID for whatever reason so perhaps it's true there. (Of course they also like denying AGW so I'm not convinced it's really true there either.) Note I did say 'questioning various aspects of AGW'. One of the problems is that people tend to conflate everyone who questions any aspect of AGW as part of some unified denialist movement. This is clearly nonsense, while current science suggests all of these people are wrong, they hold disparate views and to lump them together into one does a disservice to the reader and almost definitely just increases the support for the denialist view. Nil Einne (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, while I'm glad to hear about NZ, ID has considerable political success in Texas (liable to influence textbooks all over the U.S.) Missouri and Mississippi, to name but three. With that anti-science background it's unsurprising that AGW denial based on mistrust of scientists is popular. Another similarity, as you suggest, is that ID creationists portry any "dissent" from the established view as refuting the scientific consensus. As you say, it's well worthwhile documenting the various types of dispute about AGW. . . dave souza, talk 22:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to add one thing which is that ID is clearly a pseudoscience as nearly everyone agrees, not just because it's wrong but because it's inherently unscientific. While some of the methods of those who question various aspects of AGW are arguably unscientific and the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence supports AGW, many of the theories are in themselves not inherently unscientific or pseudoscienctific, only wrong or unsupported based on the available evidence. A better comparison when it comes to evolution would be lamarckism. But the political reasons to support that died out a long time ago Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey: Of course, Intelligent design is a fringe theory. It has little-to-no support from the scientific community (at least in relevant fields). How many lay people support a fringe theory is irrelevant for our purposes here on Wikipedia. We go according to reliable sources.

Kim: Yes, there is a range of opinions within anti-AGW proponents. But that's pretty typical with fringe theories. With the 9/11 conspiracy theories, you have people who think the Jews carried out the attacks, or that a shadow government was responsible, and even people who think that reptilian shapeshifting aliens (my personal favorite) were responsible.

Dave: I don't disagree with anything you say in your post. This is one of those articles where we should explain the fringe viewpoint in context with the majority view point as it pertains to the article's topic. What I am seeing is a whitewashing of the controversy as if admitting its existence somehow invalidates AGW. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that you are conflating different kinds of scepticism. There are (to my knowledge) around 2 scientists (in relevant disciplines) in the world who would claim that "the increase in CO2 is not anthropogenic". There are (again to my knowledge) very few (handfull or so) scientists (again in relevant disciplines) in the world, who would state that "CO2 doesn't cause warming". Despite this - MSM picks this up as relevant positions in the climate change debate. On the other hand you can find a minority of scientists who think that there might be negative feedbacks that will counter the effects of global warming (tropical iris or cosmic rays). These views are seldomly referred in MSM, but are real and true science, which is mentioned in our articles. There is indeed a disconnect between what you read in MSM and what you can find in climate science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen: OK, I get your point now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over bold-face?

We're edit warring over whether a word should be in bold-face?[34][35] Really, guys? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS implies that if emphasis is needed it should be in italics rather than bold, though it's not entirely clear. But yeah, it does seem to be a small thing to edit war. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not an edit war, since there is only a single reversion. A clear consensus for the current first paragraph was established in a previous section. The question of using a bold typeface has yet to be discussed. We have conflicting issues:

• There is a guideline (not a policy) that states:

  "Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than mis-spellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term." This seems to indicate a bold typeface is preferable.

• "Climategate" is not actually an alternative name for the hacking incident that is the subject of this article. Rather it is an alternative name for the controversy that followed the incident. This seems to indicate a bold typeface would be inappropriate.

We need to discuss how to reconcile these and reach a consensus before any more attempts to apply a bold typeface to the term occur. That is reasonable and consistent with Wikipedia best practices for resolving disputes amicably. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There's been a bolding of this paragraph since I started editing on this article around 25. November. Every (even the most pro AGW ones, see Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_22#Non_skeptic_sources_using_climategate) media outlet uses this as the name for this incident. There's been a lot of work done by you (this is the third or fourth time you have tried to remove the the term, or the bolding. For how long shall you go on with this partisan editing? Nsaa (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There was broad agreement for the first paragraph is it stands; however, there was also a commitment to undertake a discussion about the bold-face issue. As outlined above, it is not clear whether or not the use of a bold typeface is appropriate. In case you hadn't noticed, the person who proposed moving your beloved "Climategate" moniker into the first paragraph was me - hardly "partisan editing", is it? Perhaps if you would participate in the discussions and help develop a consensus instead of just making antagonistic, agenda-driven edits to article space you would find it easier to get your point across. Also, please refrain from creating bullshit redirects - another example of your clear agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, it has been your contention from as long as I can remember to remove or minimize the word of Climategate. And now you are claiming that this article and climategate are not the same thing? If I remember correctly, the article was originally Climategate, changed to this and now is in baby steps trying to minimize the origin of the story. To me this is very disingenious. But if I understand you correctly, it is now ok to start an article called Climategate. Arzel (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You continue to misinterpret everything, and now you have compounded the issue further with an agenda-driven reversion. How can you possibly accuse me of attempting to "remove" or "minimize" the word "Climategate" given the great lengths I went to in order to get it promoted to the first paragraph of the article? You should refactor your comment and self-revert your article edit to avoid further embarrassment. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

@Scjessey on your comment "creating bullshit redirects" please discuss it on the relevant page Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_30 where I agree with you on that this was not a god redirect, but not delete it as you wish. Nsaa (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor Prodego ^talk 18:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a little unclear at this point but this article seems to be about the hacking incident, and to some extent about the emails itself, but is not really about the public scandal/controversy popularly known as "climategate". Under the circumstances we would not normally bold "climategate" because it is not truly an alternate title for this article, it is a title of a slightly different thing. A like within the article seems a little nonstandard. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be a separate article titled "Climategate controversy". Parts of this article could be transferred there. This has been suggested before and I suggest it again since the controversy is very much alive and well and changing as time goes by.130.232.214.10 (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with wikidemon, removed link and put climate gate in italics, everyone ok with this now? mark nutley (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems logical to me. I think I put the link in because Jpat suggested it. "Hell no" on the "Climategate controvery" idea though - obviously that would be a POV fork. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for a separate Climategate controversy article since that's what this article is about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If editors will not allow an article of Climategate, then I do not see why it cannot be bolded in this article. The original title of this article was Climategate. It was then changed to the current title, and now some editors are claiming that this article is not about Climategate so Climategate cannot be bolded? Yet at the same time a seperate Climategate article cannot be created because it creates a POV fork? I fail to see how anyone can justify that logic. The continued attempt to 1984 this story is disturbing to say the least. Arzel (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It is utterly irrelevant what the original title of the article was. Besides, it was only called "Climategate" for a single day before it was changed (per WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal). I think the current arrangement is perfectly acceptable per Wikidemon's sensible rationale. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Arzel makes some good points. --SPhilbrickT 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source interlude

Questions about the BBC's suitability as a reliable source have been raised, but this video should put everyone's mind at ease. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha great piece :-) Nsaa (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR violation in Code and Documentation section

The section currently reads:

On BBC Newsnight, software engineer John Graham-Cumming said that the code lacked clear documentation and an audit history, and possibly included a bug and poor error handling.

This is in violation of WP:OR, as the RS does not say that the code "possibly included a bug and poor error handling," it says that the code "included a bug and poor error handling." I don't expect that there will be any argument here, as they would fly in the face of WP policy, but it's on semi-lock right now so I feel I should mention it before editing directly.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I re-examined the source and you are correct. It does not contain the word "possibly". The word "possibly" is WP:OR and should be removed from the article. Good catch! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As I previously stated, this entire section should be deleted because it was based on an error by Newsnight. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Except the BBC News is sticking by their story. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the error remains and this has been confirmed by another reliable source. The two sources cancel one another out, which means the section should be removed so that Wikipedia isn't needlessly reporting the BBC fail. If in doubt, leave it out. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha. The entire article would be canceled out if this were true. It's a controversy. RSs are reporting conflicting information throughout.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, when reliable sources disagree, you document the dispute. Consider, for example, the debate among historians regarding the functionalism/intentionalism of the Holocaust. Or the debate among scientists whether the ALH84001 meteorite contains evidence of ancient life on Mars. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are examples of significant, widely-known disagreements. This is a trivial matter known by very few that has received virtually no coverage in reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a stab at rewriting that sentence, which includes the removal of the word "possibly." Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Refocusing the discussion

I'm not asking whether the entire section should be left out (though on that, review WP:V. It's a policy, not a behavioral guideline). I'm asking, given that the above sentence is there, whether there would be any serious objections with me altering it to bring it in line with WP:OR. Specifically, removing the word "possibly." So far it sounds OK with people.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Support --SPhilbrickT 13:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Another (only semi-related) edit

It's not clear to me why these two sentences were removed, and I'd like to re-add them:

When he challenged Newsnight on this, they responded that "Our expert's opinion is that this is climate change code" and declined to retract the story. He commented that on the same basis the quality of code he put together for students could be used to discredit other research code.

This is informative, relevant and backed by the same source. Shall we readd? --Heyitspeter (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe Hipocrite removed this[36] saying that "I will revert this edit on request by anyone who also gives reasoning for their request on the talk page.". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I want to add this particular section back. I'm not asking for a full revert here.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know what "climate change code" is supposed to mean? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS not opinion please WMC. @ Boris I would assume they are refering to the climate data found in the foi.zip --mark nutley (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, your assumption is not a rs. As a complete non expert I'd have thought it referred to programs or macros, hence the references to Fortran, but looking up a dictionary it appears that "S: (n) code, computer code ((computer science) the symbolic arrangement of data or instructions in a computer program or the set of such instructions)"] is the relevant meaning, which indicates that it could be any of the stolen documents, including the emails. A good source giving clarification would be useful, but without explanation it appears that the BBC's expert was being very uncommunicative. . . dave souza, talk 10:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave, i am well aware that my assumption is not an rs :) However think about it, you can`t run an e-email through a program to see what the results will be so it was not a ne-mail they were talking about :). You can run temperature data processing software which is what i believe hippocrite has put in the article, but you would need the data to run the program. So by simple reasoning then it must have been climate data he ran through the software, so he ran the code through the program, found errors in the code (not surprising after looking at harry`s readme) and gave his expert opinion on it. --mark nutley (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Accepting that you're speculating, do you mean climate data, climate data processing code, or climate projection simulation code, to name but three? . . dave souza, talk 11:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a one of those horrible car analogies: If a car mechanic sees a car missing key components such a spark plug the mechanic does not need to try to drive the car to say it's not going to work. In the same way anyone familiar with computer code can spot errors that cause loss of data without running any actual data.85.76.33.7 (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But of course it depends what the code was to be used for, and whether it was a finished product or an early effort to find the bugs, including feeding in test data which was deliberately not real climate data. This expert view seemed quite informative to me. Obviously we can't expect a scientist using code to achieve the level of bug-free perfection that full time professionals were producing at that time, like Windows Vista for example. So, we still need a source if we describe it in any detail. . . dave souza, talk 11:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Obviously we can't expect a scientist using code to achieve the level of bug-free perfection that full time professionals were producing at that time, like Windows Vista for example." - Oh the irony of that sentence! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the original question. Heyitspeter's proposal to re-add the two sentences about Myles Allen's statement seems reasonable to me, it does indicate that "climate change code" is pretty meaningless – could the wording be improved to make that plainer? . . dave souza, talk 12:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe those sentence should stay out. That newsnight is standing behind its story isn't intersting, and there's no reason to include every rhetorical device used to refute the relevence of the code. However, if we were to reinsert newsnight standing behind the story, I would support making it clear that the attack wasn't on the fact that the code existed, or was about climate change, but rather that it wasn't used for anything of relevence (which is made clear in the article as it stands). Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave, can you self revert?

Dave, I believe that you might have accidentally violated 1RR with the following two edits. You reverted one of my edits here[37] and one of Heyitspeter's edits here.[38] Can you please self-revert one of them? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I did revert Heyitspeter, but I didn't revert you, I added a new and minor clarification to your edit. Your change, my further change. Not the same as it was before. As discussed at #Second_paragraph, the opinion was "With reference to FOI requests made by David Holland". I've left out "opinion" which is a useful refinement, but the wording didn't seem crucial. Do plesae discuss on the article talk page, with references, if you want to dispute that. Thanks for the helpful hint, dave souza, talk 01:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I copied and pasted the above discussion from Dave souza's talk page. He asked that I discuss this on the article talk page. So here I am.

Granted, I am not as well versed in these matters as other editors, but you reverted my removal of the word "one" in your first edit[39] and Heyitspeter's entire edit here.[40]. This seems to violate the 1RR restriction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I accepted your removal of "the opinion that in one instance" before "the UEA had not dealt properly with requests", thus leaving the initial empasis on the plural "requests" which I understood to be your preference, then after that multiple added "made by one individual" as discussed at #Second paragraph above. Two very good sources explicitly state that the announcement was about complaints brougnt by David Holland, any other sources can be considered. As for "one", Heyitspeter changed it to "an" and I'm happy with that. . . dave souza, talk 07:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate change emails hacked by spies

The independant http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-emails-hacked-by-spies-1885147.html Interception bore hallmarks of foreign intelligence agency, says expert . By Steve Connor , Science Editor Off2riorob (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)